Tarver 3-4
==
Interesting perspective on gender identity/identification in Sunday's Times:
In 2015, an indie retailer called Otherwild unveiled a remake of the iconic 1970s “The Future Is Female” T-shirt. The design was an instant success, with the first batch reportedly selling out within two days. As one of many fledgling feminists trying to make sense of the cultural whiplash surrounding the F-word at that time, I loved the shirt, because it expressed a growing feeling of something nascent but urgent.
Steeped in activist history, the Otherwild design preceded an explosion of overtly political T-shirts that responded to the changing political tides threatening women’s rights. The feminist T-shirts of 2015 and 2016 protested systemic inequalities via sans-serif slogans: “My Uterus, My Choice,” “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun-damental Rights,” and perhaps most pointedly, “Pussy Grabs Back.”
The past three years, however, have seemingly delivered another kind of feminist fashion trend: T-shirts that simply make a statement of gender. Some just say “Woman.” Others feature slight variations: “WOMEN WOMEN WOMEN” or “The Woman” or “Human Woman.” Sometimes it’s contextualized in a sentence: “I am woman,” or “Man, it’s good to be a woman!” Other times it’s in other languages: “Femme/Donna/Mujer/Woman.” You can buy a matching design for your little girl. The phrase has become so popular, it’s become something of a self-referential joke (“This Is a T-Shirt About Women”).
T-shirts with “a simple statement or word,” have “become more and more ubiquitous throughout all levels of the fashion market,” said Nina Marston, a fashion analyst for the market research provider Euromonitor International. Such shirts serve as “identity affirming purchases” she said, that could lead women to “theoretically, take a step toward becoming more politically active.”
...But cultural recognition itself is not enough. When the representation of marginalized groups becomes tokenizing rather than transformative, the project of inclusion fails. When Nike creates viral marketing spots championing women’s equality while discriminating against its pregnant athletes, cultural recognition veils oppression. When Hollywood execs proudly trot out black filmmakers while privately punishing them for using their voice, the economy of visibility betrays.
What’s more, for many women, there is real danger in visibility without political valence. To be seen in public as a trans woman or lesbian brings with it an especially grave bodily risk.
Sometimes 2019 feels like a dystopian dinner party where you’re handed a name tag at the door that reads: “Hi, my name is: WOMAN.” This kind of unvarnished visibility distracts from the towering structural barriers to gender justice while reinforcing simplistic notions of gender. By emphasizing our monolithic “womanness,” we minimize our commonalities with men, while collapsing the differences among ourselves.
To be sure, the popularity of gender-statement T-shirts has little bearing on the state of feminist politics. But perhaps the trend of visibly wearing your womanhood is a symptom of a larger cultural condition. If in 2015 we predicted the future would be female, in 2019 it feels as if we were right. Water bottles are female. Tote bags are female. Workspaces are female. And somehow, it’s still not enough. nyt
==
We've not talked enough about canine identity, or ours in relation to them...
Border Collie Trained to Recognize 1,022 Nouns Dies
Chaser, often described as “the world’s smartest dog,” made headlines worldwide for being able to identify objects by their names.
Many owners struggle to teach their dogs to sit, fetch or even bark on command, but John W. Pilley, a professor emeritus of psychology at Wofford College, taught his Border collie to understand more than 1,000 nouns, a feat that earned them both worldwide recognition.
For some time, Dr. Pilley had been conducting his own experiment teaching dogs the names of objects and was inspired by Border collie farmers to rethink his methods.
Dr. Pilley was given a black-and-white Border collie as a gift by his wife Sally.
For three years, Dr. Pilley trained the dog, named Chaser, four to five hours a day: He showed her an object, said its name up to 40 times, then hid it and asked her to find it. He used 800 cloth animal toys, 116 balls, 26 Frisbees and an assortment of plastic items to ultimately teach Chaser 1,022 nouns.
In 2013, Dr. Pilley published his findings that explained that Chaser was taught to understand sentences containing a prepositional object, verb and direct object... nyt
==
The White House Blocked My Report on Climate Change and National Security
Politics intruded on science and intelligence. That’s why I quit my job as an analyst for the State Department.
By Rod Schoonover
Dr. Schoonover was a senior analyst in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department.
July 30, 2019
Ten years ago, I left my job as a tenured university professor to work as an intelligence analyst for the federal government, primarily in the State Department but with an intervening tour at the National Intelligence Council. My focus was on the impact of environmental and climate change on national security, a growing concern of the military and intelligence communities. It was important work. Two words that national security professionals abhor are uncertainty and surprise, and there’s no question that the changing climate promises ample amounts of both.
I always appreciated the apolitical nature of the work. Our job in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research was to generate intelligence analysis buttressed by the best information available, without regard to political considerations. And although I was uncomfortable with some policies of the Drumpf administration, no one had ever tried to influence my work or conclusions.
That changed last month, when the White House blocked the submission of my bureau’s written testimony on the national security implications of climate change to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The stated reason was that the scientific foundation of the analysis did not comport with the administration’s position on climate change.
After an extended exchange between officials at the White House and State Department, at the eleventh hour I was permitted to appear at the hearing and give a five-minute verbal summary of the 11-page testimony. However, Congress was deprived of the full analysis, including the scientific baseline from which it was drawn. Perhaps most important, this written testimony on a critical topic was never entered into the official record... (continues)==
Our course will soon end, but we're all lifelong learners here... so what should we read next? This, maybe?
In The Second Mountain, David Brooks explores the four commitments that define a life of meaning and purpose: to a spouse and family, to a vocation, to a philosophy or faith, and to a community. Our personal fulfillment depends on how well we choose and execute these commitments. In The Second Mountain, Brooks looks at a range of people who have lived joyous, committed lives, and who have embraced the necessity of dependence. He gathers their wisdom on how to choose a partner, how to pick a vocation, how to live out a philosophy, and how we can begin to integrate our commitments into one overriding purpose.
In short, this book is meant to help us all lead more meaningful lives. But it’s also a provocative social commentary. We live in a society, Brooks argues, that celebrates freedom, that tells us to be true to ourselves, at the expense of surrendering to a cause, rooting ourselves in a neighborhood, binding ourselves to others by social solidarity and love. We have taken individualism to the extreme—and in the process we have torn the social fabric in a thousand different ways. The path to repair is through making deeper commitments. In The Second Mountain, Brooks shows what can happen when we put commitment-making at the center of our lives.
1. Name an example of fan-base "fracturing" that defies shared regional identity.
2. What has Mills pointed out about the prevalence of white supremacy?
3. What's the function of a mascot?
4. Some accounts of the marketing and commodification of identity say the consumer impact is what?
5. Tarver says treating people as mascots does what to them?
6. Why was Tim Tebow so compelling to his fan base?
7. What does the autobiographical experience of young Malcolm Little (specifically the interaction with his favorite teacher) tell us about being "loved as a mascot"?
8. Michael Jordan embodied what?
8. Michael Jordan embodied what?
DQ
- Are you aggressively hostile to any rival teams in your city/state/region? Why?
- Are there any teams named for Native Americans whose moniker you think should/n't be changed? How about teams named for humans who are not Native Americans? (Vikings, Celtics, Canadiens...)
- What's your favorite team name? What does it mean? (Mine currently: the Huntsville Trash Pandas. No idea...)
- What should be done about the increasing prominence and prevalence of white supremacy in our society, beyond voting against it?
- Any thoughts on the data in Tables 1 (p.62), 2 (p.70), & 3 (71)?
- If you take issue with the notion that some whites treat some black athletes as mascots, intentionally or not, explain your objection(s).
- Should athletes ever be role models? What professionals or occupations are best suited to that status, if any?
- Is there a difference between a role model and a"hero"? If so, is it better or worse than being a role model for an athlete to be treated as a hero? Or just different?
- What do you make of the Tim Tebow phenomenon?
- Did/do you admire Michael Jordan?
- COMMENT on anything in the later chapters.
==
Interesting perspective on gender identity/identification in Sunday's Times:
This Is an Article About Women
In 2019, simple proclamations of womanhood are more popular than ever. But what, exactly, do they achieve?By Nicola Pardy
In 2015, an indie retailer called Otherwild unveiled a remake of the iconic 1970s “The Future Is Female” T-shirt. The design was an instant success, with the first batch reportedly selling out within two days. As one of many fledgling feminists trying to make sense of the cultural whiplash surrounding the F-word at that time, I loved the shirt, because it expressed a growing feeling of something nascent but urgent.
Steeped in activist history, the Otherwild design preceded an explosion of overtly political T-shirts that responded to the changing political tides threatening women’s rights. The feminist T-shirts of 2015 and 2016 protested systemic inequalities via sans-serif slogans: “My Uterus, My Choice,” “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun-damental Rights,” and perhaps most pointedly, “Pussy Grabs Back.”
The past three years, however, have seemingly delivered another kind of feminist fashion trend: T-shirts that simply make a statement of gender. Some just say “Woman.” Others feature slight variations: “WOMEN WOMEN WOMEN” or “The Woman” or “Human Woman.” Sometimes it’s contextualized in a sentence: “I am woman,” or “Man, it’s good to be a woman!” Other times it’s in other languages: “Femme/Donna/Mujer/Woman.” You can buy a matching design for your little girl. The phrase has become so popular, it’s become something of a self-referential joke (“This Is a T-Shirt About Women”).
T-shirts with “a simple statement or word,” have “become more and more ubiquitous throughout all levels of the fashion market,” said Nina Marston, a fashion analyst for the market research provider Euromonitor International. Such shirts serve as “identity affirming purchases” she said, that could lead women to “theoretically, take a step toward becoming more politically active.”
...But cultural recognition itself is not enough. When the representation of marginalized groups becomes tokenizing rather than transformative, the project of inclusion fails. When Nike creates viral marketing spots championing women’s equality while discriminating against its pregnant athletes, cultural recognition veils oppression. When Hollywood execs proudly trot out black filmmakers while privately punishing them for using their voice, the economy of visibility betrays.
What’s more, for many women, there is real danger in visibility without political valence. To be seen in public as a trans woman or lesbian brings with it an especially grave bodily risk.
Sometimes 2019 feels like a dystopian dinner party where you’re handed a name tag at the door that reads: “Hi, my name is: WOMAN.” This kind of unvarnished visibility distracts from the towering structural barriers to gender justice while reinforcing simplistic notions of gender. By emphasizing our monolithic “womanness,” we minimize our commonalities with men, while collapsing the differences among ourselves.
To be sure, the popularity of gender-statement T-shirts has little bearing on the state of feminist politics. But perhaps the trend of visibly wearing your womanhood is a symptom of a larger cultural condition. If in 2015 we predicted the future would be female, in 2019 it feels as if we were right. Water bottles are female. Tote bags are female. Workspaces are female. And somehow, it’s still not enough. nyt
==
We've not talked enough about canine identity, or ours in relation to them...
Border Collie Trained to Recognize 1,022 Nouns Dies
Chaser, often described as “the world’s smartest dog,” made headlines worldwide for being able to identify objects by their names.
Many owners struggle to teach their dogs to sit, fetch or even bark on command, but John W. Pilley, a professor emeritus of psychology at Wofford College, taught his Border collie to understand more than 1,000 nouns, a feat that earned them both worldwide recognition.
For some time, Dr. Pilley had been conducting his own experiment teaching dogs the names of objects and was inspired by Border collie farmers to rethink his methods.
Dr. Pilley was given a black-and-white Border collie as a gift by his wife Sally.
For three years, Dr. Pilley trained the dog, named Chaser, four to five hours a day: He showed her an object, said its name up to 40 times, then hid it and asked her to find it. He used 800 cloth animal toys, 116 balls, 26 Frisbees and an assortment of plastic items to ultimately teach Chaser 1,022 nouns.
In 2013, Dr. Pilley published his findings that explained that Chaser was taught to understand sentences containing a prepositional object, verb and direct object... nyt
==
The White House Blocked My Report on Climate Change and National Security
Politics intruded on science and intelligence. That’s why I quit my job as an analyst for the State Department.
By Rod Schoonover
Dr. Schoonover was a senior analyst in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department.
July 30, 2019
Ten years ago, I left my job as a tenured university professor to work as an intelligence analyst for the federal government, primarily in the State Department but with an intervening tour at the National Intelligence Council. My focus was on the impact of environmental and climate change on national security, a growing concern of the military and intelligence communities. It was important work. Two words that national security professionals abhor are uncertainty and surprise, and there’s no question that the changing climate promises ample amounts of both.
I always appreciated the apolitical nature of the work. Our job in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research was to generate intelligence analysis buttressed by the best information available, without regard to political considerations. And although I was uncomfortable with some policies of the Drumpf administration, no one had ever tried to influence my work or conclusions.
That changed last month, when the White House blocked the submission of my bureau’s written testimony on the national security implications of climate change to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The stated reason was that the scientific foundation of the analysis did not comport with the administration’s position on climate change.
After an extended exchange between officials at the White House and State Department, at the eleventh hour I was permitted to appear at the hearing and give a five-minute verbal summary of the 11-page testimony. However, Congress was deprived of the full analysis, including the scientific baseline from which it was drawn. Perhaps most important, this written testimony on a critical topic was never entered into the official record... (continues)==
SCIENCE SALON # 77
Dr. Lee McIntyre — The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience
In this engaging conversation on the nature of science, Dr. McIntyre and Dr. Shermer get deep into the weeds of where to draw the line between science and pseudoscience. It may seem obvious when you see it (like Justice Potter’s definition of pornography — “I know it when I see it”), from a philosophical perspective it isn’t at all easy to articulate a formula for science that perfectly weeds out all incorrect or fraudulent scientific claims while still retaining true scientific claims. It really comes down to what Dr. McIntyre describes as a “scientific attitude” in an emphasis on evidence and scientists’ willingness to change theories on the basis of new evidence. For example, claims that climate change isn’t settled science, that evolution is “only a theory,” and that scientists are conspiring to keep the truth about vaccines from the public are staples of some politicians’ rhetorical repertoire. In this podcast, and in more detail in his book, McIntyre provides listeners and readers with answers to these challenges to science, and in the process shows how science really works.
McIntyre and Shermer also discuss:
- the strengths and weaknesses of Karl Popper’s “falsification” criteria for the line of demarcation
- how conspiracy theorists draw their own line of demarcation between their version of the conspiracy vs. that of others within their own community
- the problem of anomalies that are not explained by the mainstream theory and what to do with them
- McIntyre’s adventure at the Flat Earth conference
- Graham Hancock and alternative archaeology
- Creationists and why they are wrong (and how evolution could be falsified)
- similarities between Evolution deniers and Holocaust deniers
- anti-vaxxers and their motives
- climate deniers and why they’re inappropriately skeptical of climate science, and
- how to talk to a science denier of any stripe.
Listen to Science Salon via iTunes, Spotify, Google Play Music, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, TuneIn, and Soundcloud.
==
NEXT?Our course will soon end, but we're all lifelong learners here... so what should we read next? This, maybe?
The Second Mountain
by
In The Second Mountain, David Brooks explores the four commitments that define a life of meaning and purpose: to a spouse and family, to a vocation, to a philosophy or faith, and to a community. Our personal fulfillment depends on how well we choose and execute these commitments. In The Second Mountain, Brooks looks at a range of people who have lived joyous, committed lives, and who have embraced the necessity of dependence. He gathers their wisdom on how to choose a partner, how to pick a vocation, how to live out a philosophy, and how we can begin to integrate our commitments into one overriding purpose.In short, this book is meant to help us all lead more meaningful lives. But it’s also a provocative social commentary. We live in a society, Brooks argues, that celebrates freedom, that tells us to be true to ourselves, at the expense of surrendering to a cause, rooting ourselves in a neighborhood, binding ourselves to others by social solidarity and love. We have taken individualism to the extreme—and in the process we have torn the social fabric in a thousand different ways. The path to repair is through making deeper commitments. In The Second Mountain, Brooks shows what can happen when we put commitment-making at the center of our lives.
“The thick communities have a distinct culture—the way the University of Chicago, Morehouse College, the U.S. Marine Corps do. A thick institution is not trying to serve its people instrumentally, to give them a degree or to simply help them earn a salary. A thick institution seeks to change the person’s whole identity. It engages the whole person: head, hands, heart, and soul.”
“There is another way to find belonging. There is another way to find meaning and purpose. There is another vision of a healthy society. It is through relationalism. It is by going deep into ourselves and finding there our illimitable ability to care, and then spreading outward in commitment to others. In this manifesto, I try to make the case against the hyper-individualism of the current moment, and for relationalism, a better way to live.”
“When you get down to the deep core of yourself, you find… a deep yearning to care and connect… the pleroma, or substrate. It is where your heart and soul reside.” 42
We live in a culture of hyper-individualism. There is always a tension between self and society, between the individual and the group. Over the past 60 years we have sprung too far toward the self. The only way out is to rebalance, to build a culture that steers people toward relation, community, and commitment--the things we most deeply yearn for, yet undermine with our hyper-individualistic way of life. xvii
People on the second mountain have made strong commitments to one or all of these four things:
A vocation
A spouse and family
A philosophy or faith
A community
A commitment is making a promise to something without expecting a reward. A commitment is falling in love with something and then building a structure of behavior around it for those moments when love falters. xviii
I now think the rampant individualism of our current culture is a catastrophe. The emphasis on self--individual success, self-fulfillment, self-actualization--is a catastrophe. xx
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.