Wednesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Wednesday, May 6. 2015

‘Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They’re being smart.’

Feckless feds slap Times Square’s billboards

Why not take away the faces on Mt. Rushmore? They pollute the scenery too. (I hate the very notion of Mt. Rushmore. The US is not the Assyrian Empire with government-worship)

Perhaps Deliberation Lasting a Minimum of 20 Minutes Is Required

Why wait?

Social Justice Sociologist Denounces “Bedtime Reading Privilege”

Equality as lowest common denominator. Let's all be equally irresponsible low-lifes with government-raised kids.

It's too late to worry about global warming

Anti-Semitism Goes to School - Anti-Semitism on American college campuses is rising—and worsening. Where does it come from, and can it be stopped?

Fighting grade inflation requires thoughtful policies and the courage to implement them.

The Disappearing College Male

Report Details Racial Stereotyping at U of Illinois

It's a hotbed of racism

Oklahoma Governor Signs Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Reform Bill - Gives judges more leeway for alternatives in some situations.

Good

Blaming Pamela Geller

Obama Uses Bogus Statistics to Accuse US Police of Being Racist

Bill Clinton: "There is no doubt in my mind that we have never done anything knowingly inappropriate...

USA Today editorial board: Man, this Clinton Foundation seems shady

The Clinton Foundation isn’t a “charity” in any normal sense of the word

Carly Fiorina Nails Katie Couric on Double Standards, Hillary Defense

Sorry, Media, but Hillary is Incompetent

Schoolchildren in Tower Hamlets grow up under the shadow of non-violent but extremist ideology, funded by the British government. Meanwhile, the British media and politicians are busy debating the causes of radicalization.

Media Gives President a Pass Again - The media has by and large given
President Obama’s failed Afghanistan policy a pass—just as it has his
larger foreign policy missteps.

Netanyahu calls to 'eradicate' racism in meeting with Ethiopian soldier beat up by cop

40 years after Saigon’s fall, US still hasn’t learned lessons of Vietnam

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:09 | Comments (35) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

regulating billboards. Because they can.

#1 fjord on 2015-05-06 08:38 (Reply)

Bedtime stores...

I'll lay odds that not one in 200 readers actually tracked down the original story, including Greenfield, who usually gets things right.

Days like this I know the conservative movement is doomed.

#2 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-06 09:36 (Reply)

It's too late to worry about global warming. Then let's party, party 'till the bell rings, or the boom booms, or whatever.

#3 BillH on 2015-05-06 09:50 (Reply)

I'm with you, Bill. This is just another thing I've missed out on while frittering my life away so we might as well have fun till we can't anymore.

#3.1 mudbug on 2015-05-06 09:56 (Reply)

Re: Carly Fiorina

I think she's looking pretty sharp. I don't think she has much of a chance to win but I think she can change the dynamic. I feel the same way about Carson.

#4 mudbug on 2015-05-06 10:00 (Reply)

RE: Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried

QUOTE:

‘Ultimately, men know there’s a good chance they’ll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and — if it all goes wrong — their family,’ ... .

-- said every dude bro everywhere

#5 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-06 10:05 (Reply)

Nice nom de plume, there SJW! Does a woman such as yourself always go to such extremes?

So, what exactly is your point?

#5.1 Earl T on 2015-05-06 10:24 (Reply)

So, being a good parent is evil? Dysfunction is a duty? Well, Swift, don't be surprised if you get preyed on by one of the children you forced the parents to neglect the proper raising of.

#6 Korora on 2015-05-06 10:22 (Reply)

... said someone who didn't read the article.

#6.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-06 10:49 (Reply)

I read it so I don't get your point.

While Swift doesn't come out and say that parents should stop reading to their kids at night, he does say:

QUOTE:

Swift said parents should be mindful of the advantage provided by bedtime reading.

“I don’t think parents reading their children bedtime stories should constantly have in their minds the way that they are unfairly disadvantaging other people’s children, but I think they should have that thought occasionally,” he said.

Why exactly should parents have the thought even occasionally that they are 'disadvantaging' other people's children by reading to their own if not to encourage guilt? And who's 'disadvantaging' whose children?

It's staggering that the inequality Swift sees is dealt with by examining those who are elevating (I guess we might use another form of Swift's made up verb and say 'advantaging') their children (and thus society as a whole) and not with those who are not and thus 'disadvantaging' their children (and thus society as a whole).

#6.1.1 mudbug on 2015-05-06 11:23 (Reply)

Did you read the Greenfield article or the linked Daily Telegraph story or the actual interview on the Philosopher's Zone?

Greenfield quotes the Daily Telegraph article which misquotes Swift, it changes a word which alter's Swift's tone and deletes context which completely changes Swift's point.

So while I'd be happy to discuss Swift's comments, which are about an idea proposed by Plato in The Republic, I'm not interested in debating Greenfield's or the DT's distortion.

My other point is, why didn't Greenfield or the DT (or, hint) not go to the source before trashing it? It took me less than a minute to find it. I'm guessing either intellectual dishonesty or laziness.

#6.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-06 11:54 (Reply)

Greenfield and DT do appear to have distorted Swift's position with regard to bed time reading.

But Swift and Brighouse do not seem suggest Plato's solution:

QUOTE:

‘Nearly everyone who has thought about this would conclude that it is a really bad idea to be raised by state institutions, unless something has gone wrong,’ he says.

They also seem overly concerned about private school. They make the case that private school positively affects the quality of the family so they would be happy enough to do away with them:

QUOTE:

‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’

Does anybody say that private school enhances the family or that they might enhance the prospects of the child?

QUOTE:

It’s the usual bind in ethics and moral philosophy: very often values clash and you have to make a call. For Swift and Brighouse, the line sits shy of private schooling, inheritance and other predominantly economic ways of conferring advantage.

It is obvious that a good family situation is a primary factor in a child's prospects but it seems strange to me that his discussion of equality is centered on the quality of the family rather than the results of all family activities. It is a non sequitur that private school doesn't enhance the quality of the family. That's not why parents send there kids there. Is there evidence that merely being raised in a good family environment is the determining factor that enhances the prospects of the children? That seems to be their implication.

Of course, their definition of family is pretty expansive. By making the obvious point that a biological family is not necessarily in the best interest of the children:

QUOTE:

‘It’s true that in the societies in which we live, biological origins do tend to form an important part of people’s identities, but that is largely a social and cultural construction. So you could imagine societies in which the parent-child relationship could go really well even without there being this biological link.’

They don't specify how or why a child might make the transition from a biological family to a nonbiological one. Certainly, there are common situations where that is currently accepted to be in the best interest of the child so one wonders what is controversial about that. It seems that they would likely expand the situations where that could happen. They theorize that expansive definitions of families (e.g. more than two parents) could be just as or nearly as effective at raising a child. One model of that could be the traditional orphanage. One suspects that that's not what they were thinking about.

There has been a model for families as well as a model for alternatives for children for whom a 'natural' family is not available or possible. These models have worked well for centuries but for some reason, some of us think we have a better idea. Those people pay no price for being wrong and they quite often they are.

#6.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-05-06 13:50 (Reply)

he's discussing Plato but disagreeing with most of it. Swift's position is finding some ground where there's an equality of opportunity in childhood. here, he supports bedtime stories as necessary to family life but questions private schools as not necessary for that end.

QUOTE:

The test they devised was based on what they term ‘familial relationship goods’; those unique and identifiable things that arise within the family unit and contribute to the flourishing of family members.

For Swift, there’s one particular choice that fails the test.

‘Private schooling cannot be justified by appeal to these familial relationship goods,’ he says. ‘It’s just not the case that in order for a family to realise these intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based relationships you need to be able to send your child to an elite private school.’

In contrast, reading stories at bedtime, argues Swift, gives rise to acceptable familial relationship goods, even though this also bestows advantage.

‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’ he says.

the essay is about a justification for eliminating private schooling because (1) it is not necessary for a healthy family and (2) it causes disparities in equality of opportunity. You can disagree or not, and legitimately support either position but this isn't about banning bedtime stories.

Plato's Republic is speculative political philosophy, Swift is doing the same thing. Like Plato, who suggested the the children of the elites be raised by the State, Swift is engaging is the same kind of hyperbole.

I just don't get why Greenfield got this so badly wrong.

#6.1.1.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-06 16:39 (Reply)

You are echoing my assessment.

Their attack on private schools makes about as much sense as the erroneous assumption about their being against bedtime reading and for the same reason. Private schools are not to enhance the family structure but to enhance education. Since they do not suggest that they are detrimental to the family or that they aren't good schools, one can be forgiven for assuming their problem with them is that not everybody can avail themselves of them and thus they contribute to inequality. The effect of their position would be that some kids who currently get a better education would be given one of lower quality in order to enhance equality.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-05-06 17:16 (Reply)

Being a product of private education, I don't mind any call for its eradication. But I don't have any strong opinions on this, one way or the other.

You are still misreading the argument. Private schools aren't intended to strengthen the family, they are intended to give advantages to children of elite parents. Swift suggests leveling the playing field by eliminating these schools. In fact, he could do this by reforming public education, but he does not make this suggestion.

But if private schools did strengthen family ties the way bedtime reading does, they would pass a sort of a go / no go test and should be kept.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-06 18:16 (Reply)

I'm a product of private school education, too.

I see your point about his comparison between private schools and bedtime reading.

One of the things that may be catching me, at least, is what is the definition of "private school". In my experience, it is a day primary school. If he is talking about a boarding school, that would explain his assertion that they do not enhance or even support the family experience. He says:

QUOTE:

‘The evidence shows that the difference between those who get bedtime stories and those who don’t—the difference in their life chances—is bigger than the difference between those who get elite private schooling and those that don’t,’ he says.

This doesn't directly address the benefits or disadvantages of private school unless private school precludes bedtime reading.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 mudbug on 2015-05-06 19:35 (Reply)

now I've got to examine my own assumptions...

I assumed he was referring to primary or day school, because of the ages that kids would be read to at bedtime.

what I think he's saying is that in the hierarchy of values, family values (including bedtime reading and characterized overall as "intimate, loving, authoritative, affectionate, love-based") are more important than elite schooling. and that IF society wants to level the playing field for children, then banishing the advantages conferred by elite schools is on the table because these schools do not help family and consequently, eliminating them will not hurt family. banishing bedtime reading is off the table, even if it confers advantages.

the remark was intended to be humorous ("quip").

you'e got some well argued points.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-07 01:39 (Reply)

I need to add one more point. There's an unstated and incorrect assumption that elite schooling is a better predictor of success than family values (intimate, loving, authoritative, bedtime reading, etc.). But success in life is a multi-faceted thing. A man might be called on to be a husband, father, provider, warrior, leader. I'd put my money on someone raised in a loving, authoritative family than someone whose main boast is elite schools.

#6.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-07 01:59 (Reply)

My son went to U. of Illinois, so I pushed through the link and I"m looking over the study itself. There's some holes.

"For example, an academic advisor’s obvious surprise
that an Asian student is struggling in a math class is
a microinsult because it assumes that mental abilities
are an attribute of race."

No. It assumes that proficiency in mathematics produced through concentrated study is emphasized in Asian culture. And, indeed, it is. Not everything is race. Lots of things are culture. Go ask any Asian kid or parent if Mom and Dad pushed them to study their math and get good at it.

"A store employee asks only Latinos to check their bags when entering assumes criminality based on race."

How was the assertion that only Latinos are asked this supported?

"Assuming that an African American student was admitted to a predominantly or traditionally White institution simply because of Affirmative Action rather than merit is another
example of a racial microinsult."

Was it so assumed on an individual basis? Or was it mentioned as a factor in the admission of blacks overall? And if an individual case, was it based purely on his/her race, or did the observed academic abilities of the individual also factored in (e.g., it is seen after a number of weeks that the black individual involved clearly has a sub-standard academic background)?

Just because someone is non-white does not mean that any attribute or property presumed on their part is based on their race.

#7 RonF on 2015-05-06 11:53 (Reply)

We should just eat the children instead

#8 johnathon swift on 2015-05-06 11:53 (Reply)

Wow. Read some of the comments on the article about why men aren't marrying. There is a real dislike of women on there. The blame for failed marriages is laid at the woman's feet. If I believed those comments we could conclude: all women are manipulative, all women are into marriage for the money, all women are liars and users.

I am thinking these commenters are focusing on the wrong women. Just as men claim the women don't look for 'nice guys,' the same is true for me. They won't look at 'nice girls.'

Go to ANY church in America, and you will see more single women than single men. Women of faith are wanting to find men of faith. If they don't put out after 2 or 3 dates, they are dropped like a hot potato.

It's definitely hard to be a single woman with values these days. So few men care or are looking for women like this. Sigh...

#9 MissT on 2015-05-06 12:25 (Reply)

Not all women, MissT, but enough that it's exceedingly risky committing to one.

I personally know 2 friends who had a seemingly happy marriage, loving wives, children, nice home, decent job.
Both of them, within months of them losing their jobs (one through unemployment, then other disability) lost everything because those same loving wives ran off, with the kids, and half or more of their belongings, AND big alimony payments, both with men they'd had affairs with for years behind their husbands' backs.

And with courts just about automatically finding for the woman in any divorce proceedings, even if it leaves the man destitute and the woman leaves him to remarry into wealth, why take the risk of getting married?

My parents were together for over 55 years through thick and thin until my mother died. Today? Most marriages break up after a fraction of that. And always the man is the one bearing the financial burden...

#9.1 J.T. Wenting on 2015-05-06 13:23 (Reply)

And I am a woman who had her husband do the same thing. I made the money, took care of the kids, ran the business, took care of him (because he was an idiot)...and he rewarded me with an affair.

Men and women alike cause divorce. It is equal. Not one side more than the other.

That is all I am saying.

#9.1.1 MissT on 2015-05-06 17:54 (Reply)

And in each of those cases, the woman gets the better deal out of it (or at least is most likely by far to get the better deal)...
You can be a woman with millions to her name, marry a husband who's destitute, and when you divorce get to keep those millions AND get half your former husband's earnings for the rest of his life.
Were you a man with millions to his name you'd be ordered to fork over half of that AND half your earnings for the rest of your life.

#9.1.1.1 J.T. Wenting on 2015-05-06 23:50 (Reply)

You are incorrect. I was the one that suffered financially. He walked away from everything. I ended up with the kids, but that also was a huge financial hit for me b/c he has skirted paying correct child support for years. So easy for a bad parent to mess with the child support system. It takes so long to get a support correction through the system, the bad parent can quit a job, claim s/he is 'unemployed' or making min. wage, the new support agreement goes through, he dumps the min. wage job and makes a ton more. Also, easy to hide self-employment $.

I could tell you my sob story, but I'd rather not. Just know I got SCREWED financially.

#9.1.1.1.1 MissT on 2015-05-07 11:51 (Reply)

Fortunately I have been happily married and out of the dating pool for over 30 years (thank the Lord) but I feel for my sons, who are both in their mid-twenties, with no women in their lives, and apparently no desire to do so.

And I just had this conversation with my wife yesterday--I look at the young women walking around and I find them singularly unattractive. Full of tattoos, foul mouths with the f word and the s word coming out constantly, rude, privileged, obnoxious. I would give them a name of what I think they are, but it would probably be inappropriate here. Why would any man in his right mind want to spend time or energy on such women?

My wife's response to this comment was like yours, she said, well you can still find good women at our church, can't you? I guess that's true, and I will admit there are women at church I would still consider virtuous and worthy of being pursued by guys, but I always wonder how many of them are actually "available." I remember when I was a young guy, most of these eligible women turned up their noses at me. And I once pursued one of them for almost two years when I was in law school, and in the end I just ended up in the "friend zone." I was good for being a companion, helping her buy groceries, protecting her (where we went to school was in a somewhat shady area, especially at night). But in the end I was just kind of a sucker Sir Galahad and it was "it's been real."

And on standards, I can't tell you how many times when I was single when I would go out, and on the third date the woman wanted to jump in bed. For a bunch of reasons I won't get into, not all spiritual, that always was a big turn off for me, and I would just freeze and get this pain inside. And the most ironic thing is when I would tell the woman I wasn't ready for that, the response invariably was, "what, are you gay?" If you don't know what the worst thing is in the world you can say to a guy who is trying to navigate the dating world and show respect to the woman he is on a date with, that is it. Anyway, that was always the last date.

Finally, I do think the legal system is now rigged against men. My law firm almost always represents the women in family law cases. When I first started practicing law 35 years ago, women were considered the weaker client financially. Not any more. Not only do they have they likelihood of grabbing much of their husband's assets as well as getting child support, under our family law rules the husband now also has to pay for their legal fees. So they are largely in a no-lose situation by electing divorce. The more assets the husband has, the more likely he is to be impoverished by the divorce process. So a lot of divorces are bitter contest on fighting over the assets and the children. The other high risk group is men who lose their jobs. A lot of times the wives quickly file for divorce so they can get the kids and whatever assets there are, and then they go out looking for better prospects.

#9.2 Jim on 2015-05-06 14:54 (Reply)

MissT, I quite agree with you. In fact, there is nothing I can add to your words. I have been struggling with this for so long and it is truly heart wrenching to hear about the myriads of deceitful manipulative women who get married 2, 3 or even 4 times while nice women get passed over.

#9.3 missred on 2015-05-06 15:01 (Reply)

MissT and missred--

If I were 35 years younger, I wish that I had run into one of you. I mean that seriously. One thing I have to say is that young men in general are stupid. They can't see through the outer packaging or the flashy packaging and so are easily fooled. So unfortunately they often get tricked into going for the flash when the real thing might be standing right next to them.

#9.3.1 Jim on 2015-05-06 15:30 (Reply)

I tried to talk to my oldest stepson about this...look past the plain and not-quite fashionable. When women are young (18-25) many of them don't know how to dress, do hair or make up. They don't feel like they are particularly attractive or even realize men are looking at them. These are the girls you should go for. By the time they hit their 30s, they figure it out...have the outfits, improved the hairstyle and know about make up. Usually, they are the smarter girls who were more focused on academics than social stuff.

My husband, being your typical dude, did not want me to tell him to go for a 'plain' girl. He was worried his son would end up with an ugly woman who got uglier as time progressed. LOL.

Gotta see past the plain Jane exterior. Every single 'pretty' woman you see is plucked, shaved, concealed, dyed and hairsprayed into that. They do NOT look like that 'naturally.' Give a plain Jane a try!

#9.3.1.1 MissT on 2015-05-06 18:00 (Reply)

MissT--You should watch "A Walk to Remember," a high school romance movie about a Plain Jane who is truly beautiful inside and out. Not only do you see what she's really like as the movie progresses, but she also completely changes the jerky, self-centered Mr. Stud football player she originally was tasked with tutoring. Probably my favorite tear-jerker movie of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Walk_to_Remember

#9.3.1.1.1 Jim on 2015-05-06 19:58 (Reply)

"Why not take away the faces on Mt. Rushmore? They pollute the scenery too. (I hate the very notion of Mt. Rushmore. The US is not the Assyrian Empire with government-worship)"

the US has been a center of government worship since at least WW2.
Not by the entire population, but an ever increasing percentage, and ever more enforced as well.

Mount Rushmore is one of the earliest signs of that. Every former president getting his personal shrine (oops, "library") and cult (oops, "policy center" or "think tank") are other clear signs.

And if the cult of Obama and Clinton (and the Kennedies) aren't clear signs of politicians (and especially presidents) being deified, treated as divine beings, I don't know what is.

#10 J.T. Wenting on 2015-05-06 15:55 (Reply)

The first time I went to Washington, D.C. as a teenager, I was dismayed by the statues, plaques and memorials in every nook and cranny, especially in the Capitol. My immediate impression was that it was probably more gaudy, cluttered and tackier than imperial Rome at its height.

It's only gotten worse.

The Vietnam Memorial I think has class, but certainly that is offset by such examples as the Apotheosis of Martin Luther King, Junior as a Chinese Socialist Hero of the People. And who can forget Three Women in a Bathtub?

#10.1 Jim on 2015-05-06 16:10 (Reply)

It appears that Swift thinks reading to one's child disadvantages children whose parents don't. the solution to which is don't read to your child, and not that other parents should read to theirs.

#11 Sam L. on 2015-05-06 16:44 (Reply)

you didn't read the article either

#11.1 Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz on 2015-05-07 09:19 (Reply)

I believe the courts have injected themselves incorrectly into family affairs regarding divorce and dependent children. I think it should always be split custody 50:50 and split child support 50:50 (in other words no child support each parent pays their own costs when they have the children. After that the parents themselves can decide to pay something to the other parent or to choose more or less custody as they like. Without such a mutual agreement the standard is 50:50 with no recourse.

#12 GoneWithTheWind on 2015-05-07 23:12 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, May 6. 2015

Wednesday morning links