A hardcover, 322-page book called From Eve to Dawn, A History of Women, by an author I had only heard of vaguely, Marilyn French. The hardcover book was normally priced at $34.95 in Canada, but I bought it on impulse for only $10 at a local book store. (I love education at rock-bottom prices. It turned out to be far more extensive an education than expected.)
That book led to other research in other books and on the Internet as I tried to both confirm and disprove what I had read, and write about it here. This has led to a great number of aborted attempts at writing about the subject in my blog, because each time I thought I had something coherent to say, another finding or theory would stop me in my tracks.
The conventional thinking is humans are beyond the dictates of nature. Apart from our drives to feed ourselves, reproduce ourselves and, generally, look after our own self-interest, everything is determined by our environment, from our violent tendencies to our nurturing sides. Despite this, fields such as psychobiology, socio-biology and evolutionary biology continue to gain interest from students of the human condition.
It is believed by some that while environment is still the major influence on people’s behaviours, we can’t discount the possibility – and certainty, in some people’s opinions – that the brains of men and women are different enough to explain some of the differences between the sexes and why we still don’t see equal representation in some fields of business and professions. One leading spokesperson in this field, Helena Cronin, even calls herself a feminist!
The usual feminists aren’t happy about this. After they thought they had critiqued socio-biology into scientific oblivion, the field continues to exist as evolutionary psychology. If any proof came up to show there is more to a person’s behaviour and attitudes than just socialisation, education and upbringing, it could doom many of their theories which are predicated on exactly that. But proponents of evolutionary psychology say instead that we can work toward progressive social outcomes by taking into account the tendencies of each sex as driven by evolution.
For example, if it turns out that most of the violence caused by men is done by men aged 18-45 (I’m inventing this part; don’t write in to tell me I’m flat out wrong; I know I probably am), after which violence decreases with age, it may be worth knowing that in order to see what could be done to stem violence in that age group.
Conversely, if after 50 years of concerted efforts, women engineers still don’t make up 50 percent of all engineers, and maybe not even quite 20 percent, perhaps we’ll have to review our expectations in that respect. Truly concerted efforts to change this didn’t really start until the 1990s because it was first assumed that an equal opportunity atmosphere would see the problem solve itself. Therefore, let’s see if by 2040 the awareness raising and promotion of the field to women leads to equal representation in engineering. If it does, that will be proof positive that socialisation has much more to do with our choices and behaviours than our genes.
In the medical field at least, women used to only be nurses, but a great many today are becoming doctors. Doctors are more highly trained than nurses, and have corresponding medical privileges, responsibilities, and pay scales which reflect that. But they are basically still in the people sector, rather than the “things” sector. Should that tell us something? If so, what, exactly?
Friday, April 30, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Population growth... just barely
Why do we have children? The potentially valid reasons are numerous enough:
• Avoid biological and cultural extinction;
• Produce new workers and new taxpayers;
• Justify the existence of schools;
• Support us in our old age.
Yet, a growing minority of people are challenging what used to be seen as the reproduction imperative. Some just plain don’t like children. Others are choosing to be childless, or rather child-free, for other reasons:
• Human extinction will save the environment;
• Having children ties you down;
• Having children is expensive;
• Having children limits a woman’s career possibilities;
• Children put a strain on a marriage;
• Parenthood is a calling, and we don’t hear it.
Indeed, a growing number of child-free people seem to think that parents are the ones who are selfish. They have these children and then simply expect the child-free to pick up the slack at work. Some say given the many unwanted children in the world, true selflessness would be shown through avoiding procreation and choosing adoption instead. In any case, those without children don’t see why their tax money should be used to subsidise situations into which parents, for the most part, entered freely.
Why there should be such resentment is a mystery to me. Do the child-free subsidise the breeders? Perhaps, but I hardly think they are ill used by that. The people who don’t have children save over 200,000 dollars over 18 years and are spared various other costs related to child raising such as sports programs, school activity fees, school supplies costs, larger clothing for each year of growth, summer camp costs, etc.
Some would say the parents who clamour for relief made the wrong choice when they became parents. I prefer to think the parents aren’t properly supported for the choices they made that benefit society as whole.
Then again, I’m a parent. What else would you expect me to say?
• Avoid biological and cultural extinction;
• Produce new workers and new taxpayers;
• Justify the existence of schools;
• Support us in our old age.
Yet, a growing minority of people are challenging what used to be seen as the reproduction imperative. Some just plain don’t like children. Others are choosing to be childless, or rather child-free, for other reasons:
• Human extinction will save the environment;
• Having children ties you down;
• Having children is expensive;
• Having children limits a woman’s career possibilities;
• Children put a strain on a marriage;
• Parenthood is a calling, and we don’t hear it.
Indeed, a growing number of child-free people seem to think that parents are the ones who are selfish. They have these children and then simply expect the child-free to pick up the slack at work. Some say given the many unwanted children in the world, true selflessness would be shown through avoiding procreation and choosing adoption instead. In any case, those without children don’t see why their tax money should be used to subsidise situations into which parents, for the most part, entered freely.
Why there should be such resentment is a mystery to me. Do the child-free subsidise the breeders? Perhaps, but I hardly think they are ill used by that. The people who don’t have children save over 200,000 dollars over 18 years and are spared various other costs related to child raising such as sports programs, school activity fees, school supplies costs, larger clothing for each year of growth, summer camp costs, etc.
Some would say the parents who clamour for relief made the wrong choice when they became parents. I prefer to think the parents aren’t properly supported for the choices they made that benefit society as whole.
Then again, I’m a parent. What else would you expect me to say?
Social Networks
There are various social networking sites for naturists on the Internet. Some eventually fall into the hands of pornographers, while others manage to stay clean. One of those sites, which I visit often, is truenudists.com. Others are hosted by a common social web service called “Ning.”
Being curious, I tried to find out more about how some of those groups worked. The first thing I learned was that to even see what they’re all about, you have to join. No introductory page, no perusing forum and group pages... just a sign-up page with virtually no information whatsoever. Indeed, if I hadn’t been told about them, I may never have even thought of signing up.
The different services certainly strive to maintain high naturist standards, i.e., no erection or crotch shots, no sexual banter, no swinging, no alternative communities, etc. Indeed, one of the services says right on the sign-up page that perverts and people looking to hook up need not apply. Another site spells out the rules, but they must have a difficult time maintaining the rules as some pictures and comments looked questionable to me. There are periodic cleanups, and perhaps the questionable ones I came upon have since been removed.
Some of the sites only require a profile pic. Others insist that up to three nude pictures in "naturist settings" be posted. One site specifically disqualifies pictures taken through the use of a mirror. “That’s not naturist,” it says. This can discourage people who are there for the wrong reasons, but it can also discourage nudists who, for whatever reason, just don’t make a habit of taking pictures.
A strange phenomenon: In some cases, I asked someone to be my friend on one site, and when he or she accepted, they wound up on two or more of those sites at the same time. This happened more than once. Theoretically, if I was a member of all sites at once and were to get a friend who was also a member of all sites, the friendship would be automatically extended to all sites. On at least one site where I made absolutely NO friendship requests and where I approved none, I still wound up with friends which I had first found on one of the other sites. This must have something to do with the way the host social web service is organised to support all these different sites.
Finally, like True Nudists, people can be banned for breaking the rules. Unlike True Nudists, there was a time where moderators at one site could ban people. Usually, this is exclusively the owner’s prerogative. Some who were banned on one of those sites later complained on True Nudists that the ban at that other site was for something that would not be considered an offense here. Since then, the powers of moderators have reportedly been curtailed somewhat, but it’s still too early to say how, or whether, things will change.
Generally, I prefer the approach at True Nudists. Even a non-member can peruse the site and learn more about naturism in the process, and the standards seem to be applied more reasonably, though in a somewhat tardy manner in some more serious cases. This isn’t meant as a criticism. It’s a one-person show, and the best the rest of us can do is flag and report.
At last report, it seemed Bare Friends International might go through a metamorphosis as the current administrators are considering moving it to a platform of their own. The creators have backed out of operating the site due to illness, and Ning refuses to deal with anyone besides the creators, which leaves the administrators’ hands tied on certain issues. Moving away from Ning would allow them to gain full control. At this point, they are seeking comment from members as to whether they would follow the administrators to their new site. The downside is they would have to start charging membership fees.
Most recently, I tried joining another Ning site. One member who was on one of the nudist Ning sites is already my friend on that new Ning site, and I didn’t even ask her yet. No objection, but... weird.
Being curious, I tried to find out more about how some of those groups worked. The first thing I learned was that to even see what they’re all about, you have to join. No introductory page, no perusing forum and group pages... just a sign-up page with virtually no information whatsoever. Indeed, if I hadn’t been told about them, I may never have even thought of signing up.
The different services certainly strive to maintain high naturist standards, i.e., no erection or crotch shots, no sexual banter, no swinging, no alternative communities, etc. Indeed, one of the services says right on the sign-up page that perverts and people looking to hook up need not apply. Another site spells out the rules, but they must have a difficult time maintaining the rules as some pictures and comments looked questionable to me. There are periodic cleanups, and perhaps the questionable ones I came upon have since been removed.
Some of the sites only require a profile pic. Others insist that up to three nude pictures in "naturist settings" be posted. One site specifically disqualifies pictures taken through the use of a mirror. “That’s not naturist,” it says. This can discourage people who are there for the wrong reasons, but it can also discourage nudists who, for whatever reason, just don’t make a habit of taking pictures.
A strange phenomenon: In some cases, I asked someone to be my friend on one site, and when he or she accepted, they wound up on two or more of those sites at the same time. This happened more than once. Theoretically, if I was a member of all sites at once and were to get a friend who was also a member of all sites, the friendship would be automatically extended to all sites. On at least one site where I made absolutely NO friendship requests and where I approved none, I still wound up with friends which I had first found on one of the other sites. This must have something to do with the way the host social web service is organised to support all these different sites.
Finally, like True Nudists, people can be banned for breaking the rules. Unlike True Nudists, there was a time where moderators at one site could ban people. Usually, this is exclusively the owner’s prerogative. Some who were banned on one of those sites later complained on True Nudists that the ban at that other site was for something that would not be considered an offense here. Since then, the powers of moderators have reportedly been curtailed somewhat, but it’s still too early to say how, or whether, things will change.
Generally, I prefer the approach at True Nudists. Even a non-member can peruse the site and learn more about naturism in the process, and the standards seem to be applied more reasonably, though in a somewhat tardy manner in some more serious cases. This isn’t meant as a criticism. It’s a one-person show, and the best the rest of us can do is flag and report.
At last report, it seemed Bare Friends International might go through a metamorphosis as the current administrators are considering moving it to a platform of their own. The creators have backed out of operating the site due to illness, and Ning refuses to deal with anyone besides the creators, which leaves the administrators’ hands tied on certain issues. Moving away from Ning would allow them to gain full control. At this point, they are seeking comment from members as to whether they would follow the administrators to their new site. The downside is they would have to start charging membership fees.
Most recently, I tried joining another Ning site. One member who was on one of the nudist Ning sites is already my friend on that new Ning site, and I didn’t even ask her yet. No objection, but... weird.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Rape Culture
A self-described vegan-eco-friendly-anarcha-feminist-hippie-nudist posted an article entitled Demetri Martin and Rape Culture. I have no idea who Demetri Martin is, but she describes him as a comedian, one she even liked, until one show where he apparently did not live up to her standards regarding the seriousness with which rape should be dealt.
(She does not give her name, so I will have to resort to pronouns and other ellipses to identify her.)
This is how she describes part of his comedy routine on the night in question:
“a regular guy finds a time machine and goes throughout history “seducing” womyn to be a time pimp. “Seducing” is in quotes because it is really rape. at least a couple of the circumstances. Rape by circumstance of poverty.”
In the next paragraph, she says:
“The “regular guy” goes to Ireland during the potato famine with a sack of potatoes. He then approaches a womyn and comments on the famine and shows her his sack of potatoes. She is starving and in need of food and she removes her clothes and we learn he successfully “bangs” her.”
Near the end, she writes:
“I suppose it shows a lot about the culture. That if someone is starving, and you have food, it is ok to withhold that food until they perform sexual acts. This is normal, this is rape culture.”
I agree that offering food in return only for sexual favours is a deplorable act. However, I have to respectfully disagree as to this necessarily being part of “rape culture.”
Rape is generally defined as an assault of a sexual kind, one where a victim has not consented to the sexual activity he or she is being forced to commit or endure. The only possible defence against a charge of sexual assault is that the alleged victim had consented to the act and did not change his or her mind throughout. So let’s look at the word “consent.”
The relevant section of the Criminal Code of Canada pertaining to consent, as of this writing, is numbered 273.1. Subsection 273.1(1) gives the following definition of consent: “the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.” Subsection 273.1(2) specifies further that no consent is obtained where:
(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;
(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;
(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;
(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or
(e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.
When it comes to “rape by circumstance of poverty,” the closest thing we have is Paragraph 273.1(2)(c) above. I suppose it could be argued that the possessor of food is in a position of power over the hungry and impoverished person. Whether this would have legal standing is doubtful, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that this is true.
When a sex worker approaches a potential customer, he or she is making the offer of sex in return for a form of payment. The potential customer can then either accept or refuse. But if the potential customer took the initiative to offer a form of payment to a sex worker in return for sex, he should also ask for proof of financial stability, or at least be allowed to see that his or her cupboards and fridge contain a certain amount of food. Otherwise, the potential customer may face a charge of sexual assault even if the sex worker gave his or her full consent.
Let’s now look at the situation where a non-sex worker is given the opportunity to receive food in exchange for sex. Like the sex worker, the non-sex worker can say yes or no. But if the non-sex worker agrees, then the potential customer should at least make sure the non-sex worker is not doing this “by circumstance of poverty.” Otherwise, the potential customer will be guilty of sexual assault.
Confused yet? Let’s go a little further.
We don’t actually know how the potential customer came to be in possession of the food. It may have been a gift. It may have been stolen. It may have been the product of hard work, either as a hunter, a fisher, a gatherer, a farmer or a purchaser. In any case, the potential customer has the food.
What if that food is the only food he or she has for a meal that day? Would it really be asking too much for something in return? If he or she could sell the food, at least he or she could use the proceeds of the sale to buy some more food. Otherwise, maybe he or she would accept a sexual encounter in exchange, and then try to find other food to replace what he or she had to pay out. Does this in itself represent a rape culture?
I know what point the author of the blog posting was trying to make. No one should ever have to perform a sexual act just to receive the necessities of life, and the jokes made by Demetri Martin were probably not respectful of that. But we all do what we have to do in order to make ends meet. So, the concept of “rape by circumstance of poverty” is rather problematic.
(She does not give her name, so I will have to resort to pronouns and other ellipses to identify her.)
This is how she describes part of his comedy routine on the night in question:
“a regular guy finds a time machine and goes throughout history “seducing” womyn to be a time pimp. “Seducing” is in quotes because it is really rape. at least a couple of the circumstances. Rape by circumstance of poverty.”
In the next paragraph, she says:
“The “regular guy” goes to Ireland during the potato famine with a sack of potatoes. He then approaches a womyn and comments on the famine and shows her his sack of potatoes. She is starving and in need of food and she removes her clothes and we learn he successfully “bangs” her.”
Near the end, she writes:
“I suppose it shows a lot about the culture. That if someone is starving, and you have food, it is ok to withhold that food until they perform sexual acts. This is normal, this is rape culture.”
I agree that offering food in return only for sexual favours is a deplorable act. However, I have to respectfully disagree as to this necessarily being part of “rape culture.”
Rape is generally defined as an assault of a sexual kind, one where a victim has not consented to the sexual activity he or she is being forced to commit or endure. The only possible defence against a charge of sexual assault is that the alleged victim had consented to the act and did not change his or her mind throughout. So let’s look at the word “consent.”
The relevant section of the Criminal Code of Canada pertaining to consent, as of this writing, is numbered 273.1. Subsection 273.1(1) gives the following definition of consent: “the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.” Subsection 273.1(2) specifies further that no consent is obtained where:
(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;
(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;
(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;
(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or
(e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.
When it comes to “rape by circumstance of poverty,” the closest thing we have is Paragraph 273.1(2)(c) above. I suppose it could be argued that the possessor of food is in a position of power over the hungry and impoverished person. Whether this would have legal standing is doubtful, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that this is true.
When a sex worker approaches a potential customer, he or she is making the offer of sex in return for a form of payment. The potential customer can then either accept or refuse. But if the potential customer took the initiative to offer a form of payment to a sex worker in return for sex, he should also ask for proof of financial stability, or at least be allowed to see that his or her cupboards and fridge contain a certain amount of food. Otherwise, the potential customer may face a charge of sexual assault even if the sex worker gave his or her full consent.
Let’s now look at the situation where a non-sex worker is given the opportunity to receive food in exchange for sex. Like the sex worker, the non-sex worker can say yes or no. But if the non-sex worker agrees, then the potential customer should at least make sure the non-sex worker is not doing this “by circumstance of poverty.” Otherwise, the potential customer will be guilty of sexual assault.
Confused yet? Let’s go a little further.
We don’t actually know how the potential customer came to be in possession of the food. It may have been a gift. It may have been stolen. It may have been the product of hard work, either as a hunter, a fisher, a gatherer, a farmer or a purchaser. In any case, the potential customer has the food.
What if that food is the only food he or she has for a meal that day? Would it really be asking too much for something in return? If he or she could sell the food, at least he or she could use the proceeds of the sale to buy some more food. Otherwise, maybe he or she would accept a sexual encounter in exchange, and then try to find other food to replace what he or she had to pay out. Does this in itself represent a rape culture?
I know what point the author of the blog posting was trying to make. No one should ever have to perform a sexual act just to receive the necessities of life, and the jokes made by Demetri Martin were probably not respectful of that. But we all do what we have to do in order to make ends meet. So, the concept of “rape by circumstance of poverty” is rather problematic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)