Friday Highlights

Ok. A little early, but tomorrow is my last day before I’m off work for a bit and I’m likely to be a bit busy.

  1. So, a court case, which side would you be on?
  2. A source for consternation for the average Democrat I’d imagine.
  3. Politeness. (and Politenessman)
  4. Mr Ed’s antecedent.
  5. AmigaOS was awesome.
  6. Coolness. Was a time when the pump to get was a Silca, ’cause you could get parts fo it on Mars as the saying went.
  7. Nekkid. (SFW)
  8. Men and women different, who knew? (but remember feminists will reject the notion that even though cells and pancreas might be different … the brain cannot be).
  9. Progress noted.
  10. Monday nights Bears game … beer freezes at 8 degrees F.
  11. Slippery when icy.
  12. Drones, come soon to law enforcement near you.
  13. That “mission accomplished” working website.
  14. Snow and anomalies.

 

 

10 Responses to Friday Highlights

  1. Re: #8 you may be exaggerating the extent to which most feminists are irrationally opposed to the idea that there might exist physiological male/female brain differences. It’s a sample size of one, but here’s Naomi Wolf not only affirming the likelihood of male/female brain differences but going further and suggesting that children benefit from exposure to both stereotypically male and female parenting styles.

    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/feminism-and-the-male-brain

  2. I don’t hear much carping about feminism anymore from the right but every now and then you do hear something (perhaps because Phyllis Schlafly’s brain has become too senile to articulate much of anything anymore).

    But when the right does carp about feminism we often hear two totally contradictory complaints. One is the gripe about there being no differences between men and women. Here feminists are wrong because they insist upon seeing gender as irrelevant to a person’s being as the color of their eyebrows. The other gripe is the exact opposite. That feminists want to treat women differently and specially rather than simply ‘fairly as equal to men, no better no worse’. In fact they even had a term for this, so-called ‘difference feminists’.

    So IMO if someone can’t get their story straight, they don’t have a story. Call me when you get one.

  3. 2.A source for consternation for the average Democrat I’d imagine.

    Those who opposed cap-n-trade or a cabon tax have no room to speak here.

  4. Mr Howard

    I was seeing things like this (and at other places as well).

  5. Boonton,
    I’m unclear here on what “story” I don’t have straight. The “right” may have apparently contradictory complaints, which may or may not make sense, because those complaints may be in different venues and independent. But can you give me an example where you think I am contradicting myself?

  6. Boonton,
    Why? Let’s see, “one gripe is that carbon must be reduced” a second “grip is that they firmly oppose the best method to reduce carbon” … call me when you have a climate story.

  7. So the person at that link is saying brain differences do exist, but that they’re caused by environment. Interesting.

    Side note: it would be interesting to examine the brain physiology of XY individuals with androgen insensitivity who are phenotypically female and raised as women. Even if the male/female brain differences have a biological basis (rather than environmental) the relevant biological factor may be “testosterone/estrogen ratio” and not the presence of a Y chromosome.

    Another unrelated comment: Typically differences like this are noticed on an aggregate level. Instead of “every woman is like X and every man is like Y” you get statements like, “women as a group skew toward X whereas men as a group skew toward Y”. In that case it’s entirely possible for a given woman’s brain to be “more male” than a given man’s or a given man’s to be “more female” than a given woman’s. IMO this is often ignored by those favoring rigid gender roles. The fallacy is that because women as a group skew toward X we must treat every woman as if she’s X.

  8. Mr Howard,

    IMO this is often ignored by those favoring rigid gender roles. The fallacy is that because women as a group skew toward X we must treat every woman as if she’s X.

    Yes this is true, but it also works the other way for those who favor flexible gender roles which because women skew toward X and men toward Y we must treat every person as if they are exclusively X or Y (or some mean) and ignore the skew as if it doesn’t exist.

  9. Why? Let’s see, “one gripe is that carbon must be reduced” a second “grip is that they firmly oppose the best method to reduce carbon” … call me when you have a climate story.

    Either cap-n-trade or a carbon tax would make nuclear power much more profitable. I’m unclear how that would be ‘opposing’ the best option?

    I’m unclear here on what “story” I don’t have straight. The “right” may have apparently contradictory complaints, which may or may not make sense, because those complaints may be in different venues and independent. But can you give me an example where you think I am contradicting myself?

    Why are you allowed to talk about generic ‘leftists’ or ‘feminists’ but I must cite specific statements by you? For example who exactly are you complaining about in #8? Gloria Steinum? Camile Paglia? Naomi Wolf? Betty Friedan?

    A while ago I pointed out my Godson’s observation that the NFL does not actually have any rule against a female players. In theory a team could field a woman player and a few women have tried out to be kickers but even the best female kicker to try out so far has yet to exceed what even a below average NFL male kicker can do hence we have yet to see a woman player. This policy is gender neutral but it does not require one to take any stance on ‘innate sex differences’. How would anything be improved if we changed the policy to say only men could try out for the NFL?

    And speaking of which, what actual policies have we yet enacted based on ‘brain science’? For example, imagine this conversation:

    Principal: Mr. Mark, well you daughter’s applied for the pre-college program but her brain scan shows her frontal bipedal lobe is 5% larger than average.

    Mark: Huh?

    Principal: Well anti-social behavior is associated with lobes more than 3% larger than average, she’s over 5%. As a result we have to transfer into the intensive supervision program which the school in the bad side of town has.

    Mark: Wait, she has to go to the school for criminals? What has she done!?

    Principal: Well nothing…yet….that we know about. But be assured as hard as this is to take she has serious anti-social inclinations. You just have to accept her brain type is different than yours. If you don’t allow this you will be doing her a disservice. It’s best that we put her into a highly structured environment now before she commits something really bad and then it’s too late to save her from the criminal justice system!

    Now no doubt you probably would not be very accepting of this conversation. If her doctor, though, told you that her EKG says she has a heart condition and as a result should not be allowed to play soccar or run cross country, you’d probably accept that ‘science’ with much less fuss. See you’re happy to accept ‘brain science’ when it’s interesting ‘coffee table’ conversation starters (“ohhh men are inclined by evolution toward tinkering, women focus more on interpersonal relationships…”) but I think if we really started to base actual policy on it you’d be a lot less eager.

    For example, how would you feel about an engineering school rejecting her based on brain scans? Or an arts school rejecting your application despite a stellear performance in HS? With more physical tasks we are willing to trust this ‘science’ to a much greater degree (i.e. “sorry your bone structure is just unsuitable for being a professional dancer”) than we are with more cognitative judgements.

    I’m more inclined to view ‘brain differences’ as evidence of the need for a diversity policy. For example, Wolf writes:

    And education is just the beginning. An entire academic discipline emerged out of the wholesale critique of the male tendency to create hierarchy, engage in territoriality, and be drawn to conflict. When I was in college, the feminist solution to “patriarchy” was an imagined world without hierarchy, where people verbalized all day long and created emotional bonds.

    I would view this saying we should avoid making a school either an environment that’s nothing but hierarchy, territory and conflict nor a zone of no hierarchy but endless ‘verbalized emotions’ all day long. Instead both styles should be present and ideally if any particular child works better in one style he or she should be steered towards it. It very well may be that brain differences may cause more males to respond to the first style than females and vice versa for the second. But that would be not so different as there being no female NFL players despite a ‘gender neutral’ policy.

  10. 1.So, a court case, which side would you be on?

    In cases like where strictly speaking both sides seem to have a valid argument I simply root for whichever side offers the better deal for society as a whole. That means I’d root for the company that’s offering the service of viewing broadcast TV from the Internet by ‘renting’ their reception.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>