Apr 12 2013
I recently read The Fourth Procedure by Stanley Pottinger, in which, during a surgical procedure, a man is given a uterus containing a fertilized egg. He is enraged when he finds out, afraid that if it becomes public knowledge he’ll be a laughingstock. Turns out he’s right. But I don’t get it. What’s so funny about a man getting pregnant?
Apr 12 2013
Marriage, by its very (traditional) definition, is a sexist affair: it involves one of each sex, one male and one female. And I suppose this is because, traditionally, the purpose of marriage was family: to start a family, to have and raise children.
This view is fraught with questionable assumptions, glaring inconsistencies, and blatant errors. I’ll give one of each: Continue reading
Apr 07 2013
Octavia Butler got it right in Xenogenesis when the aliens identified one of our fatal flaws as that of being hierarchy-driven (they fixed us with a bit of genetic engineering) – but she failed to associate the flaw predominantly with males.
And Steven Goldberg got it right in Why Men Rule when he explained that men are genetically predisposed to hierarchy (fetal masculinization of the central nervous system renders males more sensitive to the dominance-related properties of testosterone) – but he presented that as an explanation for why men rule and not also for why men kill.
And Arthur Koestler got it right in The Call Girls when, recognizing that the survival of the human species is unlikely, a select group of geniuses meet at a special ‘Approaches to Survival’ symposium (and fail to agree on a survival plan) – but I’m not sure he realized (oh of course he did) that one of his character’s early reference to a previous symposium on ‘Hierarchic Order in Primate Societies’ was foreshadowing.
The reason the human species will not survive is simple: Continue reading
Apr 03 2013
I’m not saying it didn’t happen.
I’m not saying that, in any way, it was okay.
But I’d like to point out that a devout Jew would’ve done, would do, the same thing to the Germans – if God told him to.
‘Oh but God would never command such a thing.’
Take a better look at your Bible: Continue reading
Apr 02 2013
Is it physiological? Do males produce a larger amount of saliva? Even so, why the need to spit it out? Why not just swallow it?
Would that remind them of swallowing semen? Which is female, effeminate, gay? (I’ll ignore for the moment the assumption that all, or even most, women swallow semen.)
But no, that can’t be right: it seems too…too reasoned. Spitting seems to be more of a reflex, a habit, a that’s-the-way-I-was-raised sort of thing, a cultural thing, a subcultural thing: to spit is to be manly. Little boys spit to appear grown up. Grown up men. So what’s the connection between spitting and masculinity? Continue reading
Mar 29 2013
I just read an article about the Brontes that mentioned “redundant women”. Apparently in 19thC Britain, there was such a male/female ‘imbalance’ in the population that about 500,000 women would remain unmarried. They were called “redundant” women and one of the big questions of the day was what to do with them. Geezus.
Mar 25 2013
I remember when I first read Levitt and Dubner’s Freakonomics, in which they present an astounding connection between access to abortion and crime: twenty years after Roe v. Wade, the U.S. crime rate dropped.
Astounding indeed. That men are so surprised by that! I mean, just how clueless are you guys? About the power, the influence, of parenting, about the effect of being forced to be pregnant, to be saddled with a squalling baby you do not want, on an income you do not have, because you’ve got a squalling baby you do not want… What did you guys think would happen in situations like that? The women would get “Mother of the Year” awards for raising psychologically healthy adults?
What I find surprising is that access to abortion isn’t related to infanticide. Pity. Given the Freakonomics boys.
Mar 21 2013
Have you watched the House of Commons proceedings lately? It’s unbelievable. I haven’t seen such petty bickering, name-calling, and tongue-sticking-outting since Dicky called Peter a wuss at recess back in grade two. Then Johnny, who was on Dicky’s side, started throwing clumps of dirt at Dougie, who was on Peter’s side, and a bunch of other boys started yelling and kicking and when the teacher came out, they all accused each other, pointing fingers, ‘He started it!’ ‘No I didn’t, he did!’ ‘Oh yeah?’ ‘Yeah!’ and it started all over again.
But they weren’t grown ups, wearing suits-and-ties and saying “Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit…” And they weren’t being paid to run the fucking country.
It’s hard to believe they can be so immature. So instead I believe it’s all a charade. To further convince us that there’s simply no point in voting, let alone calling our MP or lobbying for this or that, no hope in hell of any participation in the process making any difference at all. That way the corporate agenda can proceed, with nothing whatsoever in its way.
Mar 20 2013
I initially wrote this piece in the mid-1990s. It was published in Philosophy Now in 1999 when I was a columnist there. Ten years later, in 2010, I posted it at my other blog; it seemed required. Another three years later, I’m posting it again, here, because the people in power in mainstream media apparently still have their heads up their asses on this matter.
***
I read the other day that “Violence in our society continues to be a problem.” One, duh. Two, no wonder. I mean, we haven’t even got it named right yet.
“Violence in our society.” It sounds so – inclusive. So gender-inclusive. But about 85% of all the violent crime is committed by men. The gangs are made up of men, the bar brawls are fought by men, the corner stores are held up by men, the rapists are men, the muggers are men, the drive-by shooters are men. This is sex-specific. The problem isn’t violence; the problem is male violence. Continue reading
Mar 13 2013
I don’t.
First, I’d have to do a lot of research to figure out which organizations are really what they say they are. Names like “Lands for Life” (“Lands for Private Profit”), remind us that you can’t judge a book by its cover. (And that PR departments are masters of deception.) So that would take a while. Sending $10 or $20 to the wrong group, well, that’s not such a big deal, but I wouldn’t want to be giving or lending several thousand to the bad guys by mistake.
And of course it’s not all black and white. A solar energy company may keep its female engineers at the secretarial level. So are they the good guys or the bad guys?
And even good intentions are not good enough. I’d need to know which groups are really going to make a difference. There’s no point in funding something that’s just an ineffectual feel-good enterprise. Which organizations have what it takes to really do something? I have no idea. Because I don’t know what it takes. So I guess I’d have to hire someone to advise me, perhaps an ex-loan officer, someone who can look at a business plan and tell me whether it’ll go. I’d also have to hire someone to assess the research plan. I mean, that guy who claims he has the technology (and it’s cheap and portable) to neutralize radioactive material – is that for real?
Then I’d have to figure out how best to distribute all that money. $100,000 to ten groups? $50,000 to twenty? The whole million to one?
And that sort of depends on what I decide about priorities, about problems and solutions. How best to change/save the planet? (With or without the human species?) Do I support those out to save our ecological environment because without that we’re toast, or do I figure we have time to get to the root and focus on education programs, or do I decide we don’t have time for anything but coercion and get behind political/legislative powers?
So, no thank you, I don’t want to be a millionaire. Fulfilling the responsibility that comes with a million dollars would be a full-time job for at least a year. And frankly, I’d rather sit and watch the sun sparkle on the lake.
fiction
