Here is what I had prepared at first: 
Then came this:
Thanks to NudeInMa for this contribution!
Monday, May 31, 2010
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Crack Epidemic
Okay, I’ve just got to get this off my chest.
I have no objection to full nudity, especially at a beach or any other appropriate recreational locale. But I also believe that if we MUST wear clothes, let’s at least do it properly, that is, make sure the clothing covers everything it’s intended to cover. For this reason, I am more than a little confused regarding the trend among textiles these days to show one’s posterior as a fashion statement.
I remember when young girls began imitating celebrities who would wear their jeans so low they just covered the top of the ass crack, just barely. A great many people who do this in everyday life will actually expose their cracks for all to see. In some cases, they may be victims of poor fitting clothes and will do their utmost to lift their pants up at the earliest opportunity or at least wear underwear or a long shirt that will cover what the pants will not. In other cases, though, there is no such attempt. A woman (usually) who has crouched to pick up something on the floor will expose her crack, then stand and make no effort to adjust her clothing.
In one case, I was at the rear of a large room during a public meeting. There was a large corridor of space between my spot and the last row of seats for the attendees. The chairs used had space between the backrest and the seat per se, so one could see a seated person’s back. One woman, after having stood to speak at the microphone, then returned to her seat. As she sat, the pants “slipped” down and revealed almost her entire bottom. And this happened twice! It’s possible she sat in the last row to avoid showing this to too many people, but it happened nevertheless.
In another case, while waiting at a doctor’s clinic, a woman seated on a bench was leaning to one side and had raised her knees to her chest while speaking to someone. Anyone behind her could easily see the upper part of her butt, and quite a bit of it, too. I find it hard to believe she wasn’t aware of this.
Now, I would understand if these women were wearing heavy tool belts, like plumbers and carpenters do. But they weren’t. And I’ve seen a few men start wearing their pants low at the waist, too.
Like I say, there is a time and place for FULL nudity, and I will welcome a time when we can see that happen more often at a greater number of places in North America. But this idea of wearing pants while not quite wearing them is one I just can’t get my head around. I mean, if we must be dressed, shouldn’t we at least wear our clothes properly?
I have no objection to full nudity, especially at a beach or any other appropriate recreational locale. But I also believe that if we MUST wear clothes, let’s at least do it properly, that is, make sure the clothing covers everything it’s intended to cover. For this reason, I am more than a little confused regarding the trend among textiles these days to show one’s posterior as a fashion statement.
I remember when young girls began imitating celebrities who would wear their jeans so low they just covered the top of the ass crack, just barely. A great many people who do this in everyday life will actually expose their cracks for all to see. In some cases, they may be victims of poor fitting clothes and will do their utmost to lift their pants up at the earliest opportunity or at least wear underwear or a long shirt that will cover what the pants will not. In other cases, though, there is no such attempt. A woman (usually) who has crouched to pick up something on the floor will expose her crack, then stand and make no effort to adjust her clothing.
In one case, I was at the rear of a large room during a public meeting. There was a large corridor of space between my spot and the last row of seats for the attendees. The chairs used had space between the backrest and the seat per se, so one could see a seated person’s back. One woman, after having stood to speak at the microphone, then returned to her seat. As she sat, the pants “slipped” down and revealed almost her entire bottom. And this happened twice! It’s possible she sat in the last row to avoid showing this to too many people, but it happened nevertheless.
In another case, while waiting at a doctor’s clinic, a woman seated on a bench was leaning to one side and had raised her knees to her chest while speaking to someone. Anyone behind her could easily see the upper part of her butt, and quite a bit of it, too. I find it hard to believe she wasn’t aware of this.
Now, I would understand if these women were wearing heavy tool belts, like plumbers and carpenters do. But they weren’t. And I’ve seen a few men start wearing their pants low at the waist, too.
Like I say, there is a time and place for FULL nudity, and I will welcome a time when we can see that happen more often at a greater number of places in North America. But this idea of wearing pants while not quite wearing them is one I just can’t get my head around. I mean, if we must be dressed, shouldn’t we at least wear our clothes properly?
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Social Networking -- An Update
An update to this post -- It turns out Ning will no longer offer any free services. Any group that wishes to maintain its site will now have to pay.
The Last Laugh
There is a certain debate among different people concerning patriarchy. This is a system by which most, if not all, positions of authority and prestige go to men, and by which there are structural barriers which prevent women from attaining true equality with men. In the most extreme examples, women have no rights whatsoever, even to self-determination and selection of sex and marriage partners.
Feminists, especially, have delved into history and archaeology in attempts to find evidence of past egalitarian societies which later became patriarchal on their own or were conquered by a patriarchal state. Some even believe to have found that evidence.
Others are more sceptical. They say patriarchy is endemic to all present-day complex societies, and the most simple and logical explanation is that patriarchy has always been with us. In other words, we now have the knowledge and capability to change the present and future with respect to patriarchy, but the past will always be the past.
But what if there are other explanations? Keep in mind that feminism per se is a relatively modern phenomenon which originated in the mid-to-late 19th century. No matter how long patriarchy itself has existed, feminism itself probably started as a reaction to conditions of the time. This was the era of the industrial revolution, as workers from the countryside began to flock to industrial centres to work in factories.
According to at least one author, factory owners and employers did not discriminate between men, women and children at first. Their labour was needed to keep the machines running. (We tend to think of machines as taking jobs away from people, but this is a more recent phenomenon. In the past, no matter how much technology had improved, it was still cheaper to hire more labour. Jobless recoveries could hardly have occurred before the last two decades of the 20th century.)
But the very labour that was keeping the factories going was counted on to produce newer labour as older workers stopped working due to age or disease. It soon became apparent that the grind was taking its toll on labourers’ reproductive efforts. Pregnancy was occurring as much as before, but child mortality was high. Acting purely out of self-interest, the ruling elite reasoned that they would soon run out of labour if this situation wasn’t addressed.
Changes were made so a man could bring home a wage with which he could purportedly support the entire family. Women were encouraged to stay home when pregnant or nursing, and many wound up staying for more extended periods of time. As a result, men had the time and opportunity needed to invest in their careers while women lost advancement opportunities as well as some form of economic independence. Furthermore, because their important household work wasn’t paid for, domestic chores became devalued. As time went on, people born into the system understandably came to see this as normal, and perhaps even natural.
In this way, efforts to improve the lot of pregnant women and their children came to be, in some people’s opinions, yet another example of patriarchy putting limits on what women can do and how much they can earn. Patriarchal attitudes may well have had an effect on the reasoning applied to solve this problem. But the one constant we can never escape is that women are the ones who become pregnant, give birth, and nurse. This puts limits on their opportunities for job or financial advancement. Efforts to counter these effects and give women a more level playing field have been lacking at best.
This may be one reason why industry is facing a labour shortage of a different kind today. Women with greater access to birth control and greater career aspirations are delaying, limiting and, in some cases, foregoing reproduction in order to better their economic situation. While technological development has reduced the number of workers needed to run the machines, there is still a critical mass of workers needed to keep things running, as well as to consume the products they produce. But not enough people are currently being born to replace the existing population, and asking women to have more children than they intend to in today’s politically correct climate is politically dangerous at best.
In this sense, could women have finally had the last laugh at patriarchy’s expense?
Feminists, especially, have delved into history and archaeology in attempts to find evidence of past egalitarian societies which later became patriarchal on their own or were conquered by a patriarchal state. Some even believe to have found that evidence.
Others are more sceptical. They say patriarchy is endemic to all present-day complex societies, and the most simple and logical explanation is that patriarchy has always been with us. In other words, we now have the knowledge and capability to change the present and future with respect to patriarchy, but the past will always be the past.
But what if there are other explanations? Keep in mind that feminism per se is a relatively modern phenomenon which originated in the mid-to-late 19th century. No matter how long patriarchy itself has existed, feminism itself probably started as a reaction to conditions of the time. This was the era of the industrial revolution, as workers from the countryside began to flock to industrial centres to work in factories.
According to at least one author, factory owners and employers did not discriminate between men, women and children at first. Their labour was needed to keep the machines running. (We tend to think of machines as taking jobs away from people, but this is a more recent phenomenon. In the past, no matter how much technology had improved, it was still cheaper to hire more labour. Jobless recoveries could hardly have occurred before the last two decades of the 20th century.)
But the very labour that was keeping the factories going was counted on to produce newer labour as older workers stopped working due to age or disease. It soon became apparent that the grind was taking its toll on labourers’ reproductive efforts. Pregnancy was occurring as much as before, but child mortality was high. Acting purely out of self-interest, the ruling elite reasoned that they would soon run out of labour if this situation wasn’t addressed.
Changes were made so a man could bring home a wage with which he could purportedly support the entire family. Women were encouraged to stay home when pregnant or nursing, and many wound up staying for more extended periods of time. As a result, men had the time and opportunity needed to invest in their careers while women lost advancement opportunities as well as some form of economic independence. Furthermore, because their important household work wasn’t paid for, domestic chores became devalued. As time went on, people born into the system understandably came to see this as normal, and perhaps even natural.
In this way, efforts to improve the lot of pregnant women and their children came to be, in some people’s opinions, yet another example of patriarchy putting limits on what women can do and how much they can earn. Patriarchal attitudes may well have had an effect on the reasoning applied to solve this problem. But the one constant we can never escape is that women are the ones who become pregnant, give birth, and nurse. This puts limits on their opportunities for job or financial advancement. Efforts to counter these effects and give women a more level playing field have been lacking at best.
This may be one reason why industry is facing a labour shortage of a different kind today. Women with greater access to birth control and greater career aspirations are delaying, limiting and, in some cases, foregoing reproduction in order to better their economic situation. While technological development has reduced the number of workers needed to run the machines, there is still a critical mass of workers needed to keep things running, as well as to consume the products they produce. But not enough people are currently being born to replace the existing population, and asking women to have more children than they intend to in today’s politically correct climate is politically dangerous at best.
In this sense, could women have finally had the last laugh at patriarchy’s expense?
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tendencies and motivation
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?
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)