A.C. Kleinheider has an interesting article on the phenomenon of the emergence of Republican women but I think the phenomenon is more about resurgence. I'm afraid the supposed novelty and contradiction of strong Republican women can only be sustained by incorrect historical assumptions. I agree with his overarching observation of the dramatic shifts within the Republican Party today. But this shift seems more appropriately understandable as a return to traditional Republicanism than a departure from it in light of actual history. How far back in history is the basis for his assertion that the Republican Party "historically stood for keeping females in traditional “women’s” roles" since the Republican Party is historically the party of women's suffrage? After all, the party's anti-slavery platform was the inspiration for Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton's women's suffrage movement and many of the same people involved in the abolition movement were also involved in women's suffrage.
The 19th Amendment, also known as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, was introduced by California Republican Senator A.A. Sargent at the personal request of Anthony herself and defeated 4 times by a Democrat-controlled Senate and only finally passed the House and the Senate in 1919 when the Republicans regained control of Congress. Additionally, 26 of the 36 states that ratified the Amendment had Republican legislatures and only 10 Democrat while 8 of the 9 states that rejected the amendment were Democrat. More importantly, all the 12 states that had already recognized women's right to vote prior to the federal amendment were Republican States. Even the National Woman's Republican Association was established in 1888, 24 years ahead of the establishment of the Women's National Democratic League in 1912.
Whatever else the Republican Party did, it did not "historically stood for keeping females in traditional roles". And however great the Democratic Party may have been, it certainly historically denied women the right to vote.
Here's a compendium of some of the relevant news stories between 1919 and 1920 for some additional context.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Being a loser is victory for men?
Just about everything Matt Patterson says that men should be thankful for in his article is a loser's wet dream. Yes I know he's being facetious. But there's no mistaking his intent. Patterson wants to say that the feminist movement isn't perfect. But what he instead shows is what losers men are.
The movement for sexual equality indeed has been an equality by subtraction for men. While the inequalities that favor men have been steadily diminishing over time, the inequalities that favor women have remained virtually unchanged. Prostate cancer still gets the least amount of funding per new case and with a 10% higher incidence rate than breast cancer, still gets barely 50% of the funding for each new case of breast cancer. 90% of all inmates are men . Even with underreporting of domestic violence against men, DOJ statistics show that women commit more violence against the opposite sex than men though women are more likely to be injured. Gay men are 5 times more likely to be targets of hate crimes than lesbians. 78% of all murdered victims in the US are men. Men are twice more likely to be victims of carjacking than women. 35% of boys drop out of high school compared to 28% of girls. Men are 3 times more likely to commit suicide than women. And more.
Sexual equality has proceeded exclusively from the point of view of women. But Patterson not only fails to show that. He instead demonstrates why men should be less and less equal to women. Is he saying that it was a big mistake that women worked like men? Or did I misread him?
The movement for sexual equality indeed has been an equality by subtraction for men. While the inequalities that favor men have been steadily diminishing over time, the inequalities that favor women have remained virtually unchanged. Prostate cancer still gets the least amount of funding per new case and with a 10% higher incidence rate than breast cancer, still gets barely 50% of the funding for each new case of breast cancer. 90% of all inmates are men . Even with underreporting of domestic violence against men, DOJ statistics show that women commit more violence against the opposite sex than men though women are more likely to be injured. Gay men are 5 times more likely to be targets of hate crimes than lesbians. 78% of all murdered victims in the US are men. Men are twice more likely to be victims of carjacking than women. 35% of boys drop out of high school compared to 28% of girls. Men are 3 times more likely to commit suicide than women. And more.
Sexual equality has proceeded exclusively from the point of view of women. But Patterson not only fails to show that. He instead demonstrates why men should be less and less equal to women. Is he saying that it was a big mistake that women worked like men? Or did I misread him?
Charlie Bit Me
I don't think I've ever seen a video on YouTube that has more hits than this - over 137 million views! I can see why. Harry, the big brother, is not just big. He's a giant among big brothers.
An environmentalist can be a scientist
It is possible to be an environmentalist and still be appalled by the desecration of the scientific process by no other than climate scientists themselves. It sets the conservation of the environment against the principles of honesty and fairness. Global warming has really denegerated into an intolerant religion that not only demands belief but submission to a new set of environmental morality. That's the problem.
Environmentalism does not have to distort science in exchange for advocacy in order to effect change. Advocacy will follow when science is true. And it will be if it is allowed self-examination so it can then make adjustments and corrections when reality takes a different turn from theory. But for environgelicals, agw is a matter of faith. It's circular and it's self-referential. It cannot be questioned because there is consensus. But there is consensus only because no questions are allowed.
Environmentalism does not have to distort science in exchange for advocacy in order to effect change. Advocacy will follow when science is true. And it will be if it is allowed self-examination so it can then make adjustments and corrections when reality takes a different turn from theory. But for environgelicals, agw is a matter of faith. It's circular and it's self-referential. It cannot be questioned because there is consensus. But there is consensus only because no questions are allowed.
Good news!!!.
Have you read about the disappearing Himalayan glaciers? They could be gone by 2035. The world is seriously melting so we must pass legislations that could cost the global economy trillions in lost economic growth and keep developing nations in poverty.
Well, there's good news!!! The bad news was a typo (wink. wink. nudge. nudge). The most pessimistic estimate is actually 2350. So, the ecopalyptic prediction is really 315 years off.
So, was all that fear really because of a hyperbole? Pretty much. But at least it was for a good cause (and billions of dollars in research grants that will be used for more research to keep scaring us so that more research dollars would come in). Besides it's finally (and conveniently) being corrected now. Better late than never, as they say.
This is how climate science should be in the first place. Climate science is the only science that isn't subject to review and it's the only science that doesn't make corrections.
Now that climate science is starting to be less about climate and more about science, are corrections forthcoming?
Well, there's good news!!! The bad news was a typo (wink. wink. nudge. nudge). The most pessimistic estimate is actually 2350. So, the ecopalyptic prediction is really 315 years off.
So, was all that fear really because of a hyperbole? Pretty much. But at least it was for a good cause (and billions of dollars in research grants that will be used for more research to keep scaring us so that more research dollars would come in). Besides it's finally (and conveniently) being corrected now. Better late than never, as they say.
This is how climate science should be in the first place. Climate science is the only science that isn't subject to review and it's the only science that doesn't make corrections.
Now that climate science is starting to be less about climate and more about science, are corrections forthcoming?
Jon Stewart covers ClimateGate
Jon Stewart is really sounding more like a journalist than journalists at the NY Times or CNN etc. do. He covered the ACORN scandal when the mainstream media was downplaying it. And now, Stewart is once again going a step further than the media ever did with the CRU scandal. If global warming is supposed to be the greatest existential threat we face at the moment, shouldn't the media be covering the controversy, which casts serious doubts on the validity of global warming assumptions, to be major, major news? If there's a good chance that we might not be doomed after all, shouldn't we know about it? We should. But the media have painted themselves into a corner. Their interests are so deeply aligned with agw researchers that the potential debunking of agw would also be a death blow against the media's own credibility. So, the media are now forced to make a choice between their credibility and the truth. What underlies credibility is usually the truth. That the media are not too interested on the truth now to preserve its credibility is indeed very surreal.
Stewart is correct to be concerned over the integrity of the scientific process, but he seems to be unmoved anyway by the implications of the corruption of this process on the very conclusions it produced. If the process has been seriously compromised, the conclusions are too. Stewart is concerned that by disregarding the scientific process, climate scientists are emboldening the skeptics. He should be concerned instead that by disregarding the scientific process, climate science isn't really science at all.
She Dreamed A Dream
"Britain's Got Talent" most unlikely sensation Susan Boyle has once again accomplished the most unlikely feat, outselling any artist, male or female, this year. At 701,000 copies sold in one single week, and in a bad economy on top of that, Boyle's album "I Dreamed A Dream" is riding high at the number 1 spot on the Billboard 200 high above Rihanna and the second top selling artist this year, Eminem. Nice to see an underdog win. Go Susan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
