Feb 22 2017

Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, Sheri Tepper

Although I read this fantastic novel years ago, I was recently reminded of it by Judith A. Little’s Feminist Philosophy and Science Fiction: utopias and dystopias. 

At the end of the novel, five options for human reproduction are presented:

  1. Only partners for life will be able to reproduce, and only once every decade.
  2. Parthenogenesis, with a few males born every eighth or ninth generation.
  3. Heterosexual reproduction, but no woman will ever conceive unless she chooses to conceive.
  4. Heterosexual reproduction, but with a short period of fertility.
  5. As it has been.

What would you choose and why?

Share

Feb 13 2017

The Problem with Business Ethics Courses

The problem with business ethics courses is that all too often they’re taught by business faculty.  And ethics is, after all, a field of philosophy.  And with all due respect to my business colleagues, philosophy faculty are far better qualified to teach ethics than business faculty.

As far as I can see, business ethics when taught by business faculty is superficial at best.  The so-called ‘media test’ and ‘gut test’ are in essence nothing but appeals to intuition and childhood conditioning.  I think it far better to teach the many rational approaches to ethical decision-making which consider consequences, rights, values, and so on.

A further weakness of business ethics when taught by business faculty (and medical ethics when taught by medical faculty, and so on) is that what takes place is preaching, not teaching.  The course is essentially ‘This is the right thing to do’ or ‘Do this in this situation’ – what is taught is simply the current conventions, standard practices, and/or legal obligations.  Far better, I think, that a critical thinking approach be used: provide students with a toolbox of approaches so they can figure out what to do for themselves (after all, they are responsible for the decisions they make).*

Unfortunately, philosophy’s disdain for business is matched only by business’ disdain for philosophy.  So even when a philosopher does teach a business ethics course, it is unnecessarily difficult and sadly unsuccessful.  Students can be quite hostile when things they have been taught as fact (such as ‘The purpose of business is to maximize profit’ or ‘As long as it’s legal, it’s okay’) are challenged.  They take it personally and spend a lot of time trying to win – and so miss much of the course.  But that’s what philosophers do: we challenge the assumptions that arguments are based on.

And we insist opinions be based on arguments!  Clear and logically sound arguments no less!  That’s a lot of work!  Students are especially hostile when a lot of work is required for what is, after all, ‘a bird course’!  If the student is used to knowledge and comprehension courses, then teaching ethics, requiring arguments to support opinions, is doubly difficult.  (And business students have led me to believe that the kind of critical and abstract thinking required in these ethics courses is significantly different from anything they’ve had to do before – which is worrisome because this kind of thinking, at a much more advanced level, is required for the Reading Comprehension and Logical Reasoning sections of the GMAT.) (Of course, that’s the least of the reasons why this is worrisome.)

And in ethics in particular, we navigate through grey: there is no right answer; there are only degrees of right.  Students resist this, they stand on the sidelines, never really getting the value of the course.  They are far more comfortable with the black and white they seem to be taught in their other courses.

And sad to say, though I was a philosopher teaching business ethics, one day I was informed that I would not be asked to teach ethics again. (Well actually I wasn’t really informed – talk about the need for ethics: if it weren’t for the phone call of an administrative assistant acting on her own initiative, I probably would’ve found out I was ‘fired’ by seeing an ad for an ethics instructor in the paper….)  Why?  I asked the Dean for confirmation and an explanation.  Student evaluations have been “mixed”, he said.  True enough.  In any ethics class, there is a handful, usually the less mature and less academically apt, who react with the hostility and resistance described above.  And there are others who nominate me for an Excellence in Teaching Award.

It’s quite possible, though, the ad won’t appear.  It’s quite possible the course will simply not be offered anymore.  Such was the fate of the IT Ethics course I also taught for a couple years.  As it is, the business ethics course was offered only every second year, as an elective, sending a message of unimportance that also makes the course so difficult to teach successfully (after all, since business is profit-driven, ethics is irrelevant, and anyway, everyone already knows right from wrong).

 

* These weaknesses, by the way, are horribly magnified in business ethics practitioners (consultants, officers, and the like).  To my knowledge, most have no training in philosophy/ethics at all!  And that’s considered okay!  Would you accept an accounting consultant who had no training in accounting?  After all, anyone can add and subtract (just as everyone knows right from wrong).  Ethics practitioners are either legal people or management/human resources people and so their approach to an ethical issue is either ‘Comply with the legislation’ or ‘Comply with the company’ (but in either case, remember that bottom line). Articles on ethical issues that get published in business magazines (as opposed to those that get published in ethics journals) are, frankly, embarrassing in their lack of depth; business codes of ethics are laughable for their simplicity, their naiveté….)

 

Postscript:  Since this piece was written, a business graduate has been elected president of a country.

Share

Feb 05 2017

Rain Without Thunder (movie) HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

Rain Without Thunder (movie) HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!

 

I just watched this! And will watch it again, stopping to think at so many points!

 

Here’s the brief description: It’s the year 2042 and the threat is real…women are going to prison for terminating their pregnancies. An investigating reporter is determined to reveal the truth behind the convictions.

 

It’s available on amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Rain-Without-Thunder-Betty-Buckley/dp/B009YCWW7E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486337772&sr=8-1&keywords=rain+without+thunder

 

 

Share

Jan 23 2017

UnMythed (excerpts) – by chris wind

and now for something a little different, a couple excerpts from UnMythed, by chris wind

 

Macha

 

this one I’ll tell straight:

 

you were forced to race against a team of horses

you were pregnant at the time

you won

then you died, giving birth.

 

but with that last great exhalation

you cast a curse

upon the warriors of Ulster:

for nine generations

whenever they attempted to fight

they were incapacitated

with childbirth pains.

 

***

 

Amphion

 

perhaps you’re right about my beard–

it’s funny, I guess facial hair

well, hair of almost any kind

is a measure of masculinity

and academics and artists

have always felt a little like eunuchs

(real men use their bodies)

 

it’s an interesting insight

(and surprising from you)

but it falls a little short–

what I wonder is this:

do I have a beard

to look more like a man

or less like a woman?

Share

Jan 16 2017

For your convenience, a sanitary receptacle is provided in this cubicle. You are requested …

So I was in a public washroom the other day and noticed this little sign:  “For your convenience, a sanitary receptacle is provided in this cubicle.  You are requested to co-operate and use it for the purpose intended.”

“For your convenience.”  For our convenience?  Given that the alternative to the requested behaviour would result in a bunch of clogged toilets (your toilets) and/or bloodied napkins strewn all over the washroom floor (your washroom floor), I suggest that it’s as much for your convenience as for ours.

“For your convenience.”  Convenience?  Is the trash can by the paper towel dispenser also for convenience?  I suppose the toilet paper is a convenience too.  And the toilet.

“A sanitary receptacle.”  The receptacle may well be sanitary, but I think you mean ‘a sanitary napkin receptacle.’  And actually, the napkins put into the receptacle are not very sanitary at that point, are they?  ‘Menstrual napkin receptacle’ would be more accurate.  But men do have trouble with such words – menstrual, menstruation, menstruating.  Though they seem able to handle ‘cunt’ easily enough.

“You are requested to co-operate.”  And you have been watching too many late night movie interrogation room scenes.  Really, I think a ‘please’ would’ve sufficed.  Actually, I don’t even think we need a ‘please’.  I doubt we even need to be asked.  In fact, we don’t even need the sign: most of us can figure out what it’s for, and if there’s any doubt, just label the thing and be done with it!

I mean, why shouldn’t we co-operate?  Most women are inclined to keep things clean – this is the Women’s Room, not the Men’s Room.  Furthermore, we know that the poor soul who has to clean up any mess we leave is a cleaning lady.  Who’s probably sick to death of cleaning up her own washroom after her husband uses it.

“For the purpose intended.”  What else might we use it for, a lunchbox?  A weapon?  (“And now for tonight’s top story: as we speak, gangs of women are roaming the streets armed with sanitary receptacles…”)

Ah, but I was in a government building.  That explains it then.  At some point (it seems like only yesterday, the way they’re carrying on), the building was for Men Only.  That explains the heavy-handedness (men don’t know how to ask, they threaten) and the supposition of a predisposition to uncleanliness.

And, or, maybe the sign is intended to say “Look at us, we’ve gone out of our way to provide you ladies with women’s things, not only a washroom all for yourselves, but one with little sanitary receptacles even, a luxury washroom; we want you to know this and be eternally grateful, we want you to be constantly reminded that your very presence in this building is exceptional.”  Now I understand the threatening tone: if we don’t comply with their request, they’ll take our little receptacles away, maybe they’ll even kick us out, hell, maybe they’ll go so far as to take back the vote.

 

[Hell Yeah, I’m a Feminist is a feminist blog, often radical feminist, always anti-gender, and always anti-sexism.]

 

Share

Jan 11 2017

Women Discover Life on Mars

Should we fund a mission to Mars?  Sure.  Give us a bit of time and we can make that planet uninhabitable too.

That said, I thoroughly enjoyed watching MARS.   Why?  Because the three astronauts who walk out onto the planet’s surface at the end to discover life on Mars are all women.  Not a token one of three.  Not even a remarkable two of three.  But ALL THREE.  All three are women.

AND the bureaucrat back on Earth who makes the announcement?  Again, a woman.

AND none of this was presented as in-your-face feminist.  Not one line in the entire script made reference to their being women.  There was no male resentment, no resistance, no snide comment about quotas or reverse discrimination.  There was no undue praise, no celebration for having achieved the status of being the first humans to discover life on Mars.

They just were.

I can’t tell you how gratifying it would be to just be.  To be an astronaut if I wanted to be.  To be the one to discover life on Mars.  To be the head of a Mars mission program.  Just because I was qualified to do so and lucky enough to make it through the selection process.  And my sex had as little to do with it as my hair.

Furthermore, throughout the expedition, there was as much female presence as male.   Sure, okay, one of the women became leader only because one of the men died, but when the second crew arrived, its leader was a woman.  And if I’ve got this mistaken, it’s only because regardless of the actual hierarchy, women were as central, as important, as valuable, as active.

They were just living their lives. 

And yet, seven of the eight writers are men.  The director is a man.  All ten executive producers are men.  Even so, they had THREE WOMEN discover life on Mars.  Three women, all by themselves.  They didn’t need a man to go with them to protect them.  They didn’t need a man to go with them in case they got lost.

Amazing.  Truly amazing.

And so truly … gratifying.  To see this.  To actually see this.

Thank you.

Share

Dec 27 2016

Telling our Members of Parliament How to Dress

So I recently found this on the Parliament of Canada website:

While there is no Standing Order setting down a dress code for Members participating in debate, [84]  Speakers have ruled that to be recognized to speak in debate, on points of order or during Question Period, tradition and practice require all Members, male or female, to dress in contemporary business attire. [85]  The contemporary practice and unwritten rule require, therefore, that male Members wear a jacket, shirt and tie as standard dress. Clerical collars have been allowed, although ascots and turtlenecks have been ruled inappropriate for male Members participating in debate. [86]  The Chair has even stated that wearing a kilt is permissible on certain occasions (for example, Robert Burns Day). [87]  Members of the House who are in the armed forces have been permitted to wear their uniforms in the House. [88]

What could possibly justify this Speakers’ rule?

Could it be that our Members of Parliament can’t dress themselves?  The people we’ve voted into positions of power? Doubtful.  They’re adults.  Many of them even have a university degree.  (Okay, I know …)

Could it be somebody in a higher position of power is prioritizing appearance over reality?  What you look like is more important than what you are like.  That bodes well for, well, the world.

Could it be someone in a higher position of power is making a series of non sequiturs from clothing to behaviour and character?  If you wear a business suit, you must be honest, hard-working, mature – respectable.  Say what?

It is certainly that someone in a higher position of power is appealing to tradition and practice.  Philosophers rightly consider that fallacious reasoning.  Just because we’ve always done it that way, just because we do it that way, doesn’t mean we should.

And the other thing to note?  There’s no mention of what exactly female members must wear.  Because there’s no standard business attire for women?  No, that can’t be right.  To judge by the Speakers’ own criteria, tradition and practice, it is standard for women to wear shoes with high heels (that will be uncomfortable for standing, difficult for walking, and eventually cause postural pain), to wear a skirt or dress (that will ensure their legs are showing, because – men want to see women’s legs at all times?), and at the very least to not wear a jacket, shirt, and tie – because we MUST MUST MUST enforce the gender norms.  Our patriarchy depends on it.

(Oh, one other thing to note: “..male Members wear a jacket, shirt and tie” – what, no trousers?)

Share

Dec 14 2016

Christmas Elves

Generally speaking, I don’t do Christmas.  At all.  But when I see an ad in the classifieds for “Three female elves to work in a mall during the Christmas season”, well, I have to say something.

And the first thing I have to say is, I don’t think they’re going to find any – male or female.  They may find three women to play the part, but I doubt they’ll find three elves.

Which brings me to the second thing I have to say: why do they have to be female?  What must a Santa’s elf do that a man can’t do?

One, Santa’s elves are industrious; they’re notorious for being hard workers.  Well, men are hard workers.  (No, seriously, some are!)

Two, elves are pretty handy in the workshop, making all those toys.  Again, I think men can meet this requirement.  (Some men are even quite good with their tools, given a little instruction.)

But in the mall, Santa’s elves will probably have to stand on their feet all day long.  I must admit that I think women have an edge here.  At least they do if I’m to judge by all the checkout cashiers and bank tellers I see, all of whom are women, and apparently subject to some insane rule that prohibits them from sitting down on the job.  (I’ve never understood that one: surely their work wouldn’t worsen if they were able to sit down; in fact, it would probably improve – freedom from chronic back pain would have that effect, I should think.)

And, well, Santa’s elves have to smile a lot.  All the time, actually.  And I’m afraid women again have the advantage.  Unfortunately, smiling has become second nature for women; those caught not grinning like the idiots men like to believe them to be are often reprimanded.

Now I’m willing to grant that men, because of their much-publicized superior strength, would be able to handle the standing.  And the smiling (I suspect that it takes fewer muscles to smile than to maintain that tough and serious look so many men seem to favour).

But can they handle the subservience?  Santa’s elves get paid minimum wage, which is less than what Santa gets paid, and they pretty much play the part of Santa’s subordinates.

Despite that, Santa’s elves are really quite important.  Ask any Santa who’s had to work with an elf with an attitude.  (I can give you some names.)  A good elf intercepts the sucker that will get stuck in the beard; a good elf tells Santa the difficult names so the kid won’t start bawling because Santa doesn’t even know his name; a good elf has ‘pee-my-pants radar’ and uses it at all times.  And a good elf does all that while appearing to be merely ornamental.  I’m not sure men would be very good at that.  Most men I’ve known who are important act like it.  (‘Course, so do the ones who aren’t important.)

Lastly, let’s not forget that Santa’s elves must be good with kids.  And this one really makes me hesitate.  Men can make kids, with hardly a second thought.  But can they interact with them?  Can they pay attention to kids for eight hours at a time?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say yes.  Yes they can.  Oh I know they don’t, most of them.  I’ve read the stats on dead-beat dads who keep up their car payments while ignoring their child support payments.  And I’ve read the stats showing that fathers spend, what is it, less than an hour a day with their kids (their own kids – it hasn’t escaped me that Santa’s elves have to pay attention to other people’s kids – to phrase it in a way apparently significant to men, other men’s kids).  But well, just because they don’t doesn’t mean they can’t.  After all, if women can be lawyers and mechanics, why can’t men be Santa’s elves?

Share

Nov 27 2016

The Sci Phi Journal!

Check out the Sci Phi Journal: a journal about science fiction and philosophy!

Not just about though, there are many cool stories to read and think about…

Share

Nov 24 2016

Planning is Sinister?

In This Changes Everything,* Naomi Klein makes an interesting observation, intended to explain why we aren’t building the kind of economy we need: “… there is something sinister, indeed vaguely communist, about having a plan to build the kind of economy we need, even in the face of existential crisis” (125, my emphasis).

Is that why we don’t plan?

At the individual level.  People are so que sera even about creating other human beings.  ‘You’re pregnant?  I didn’t know you wanted to spend twenty years of your life looking after someone.’  ‘Oh, it just happened ….’

And at the community level.  If lakes were zoned, for example, everyone—jetskiers, and people-with-screeching-kids, and canoeists —could be happy.  But as it is, the first group is angry with the third, the second group is angry with the first, the third group is angry with both the first and the second.

This lack of planning—it’s all because it’s communist?  Because a pre-determined society is somehow against individual freedom?  

Not planning is against individual freedom.  Not planning is allowing yourself to be tossed about at random, by chance—and that’s not being free.

I wonder if there’s also a religious element involved.  To plan, to choose your future, is to reject, or at least challenge, God’s plan.  For you, your future.

Also, planning requires foresight, and foresight requires imagination.  Which, I’m realizing, most people don’t have.

Planning also requires strong desires, for X over Y.  Again, I’m realizing that most people—don’t really care.  (Which means they get in the way of those of us who do.)

 

*very highly recommended, by the way

Share