1. What do you think about "A sweeping noninterference agreement between Moscow and Washington that would prohibit both governments from meddling in the other’s domestic politics"? Apparently, "US officials told Moscow there would be no deal".
2. Now forget about Russia. Here's a compelling account of Saudi influence over US politics.
3. Think of a multi-ethnic yet long-term peaceful country? Yugoslavia? Er, no. Switzerland? Yes! So how do the Swiss do it? By keeping the ethnic groups apart from each other, mostly using mountains and lakes. Oh dear. Should we speculate that an awareness of the fragile nature of inter-ethnic cooperation is why "More than any other country, Switzerland’s ethos is centered around preparing for civilizational collapse"?
4. As if you hadn't spotted this fact from Brexit, Trump, etc, etc etc, it appears that more highly educated individuals are more strongly prejudiced against those on the other side of the political spectrum. A quantity theory of prejudice, anyone? (If you want to judge people - and it seems that many of us do - then I would suggest judging them on how they treat the people they actually come across. It's easy enough to say virtuous or nasty things about groups of people in the abstract - that's all just virtue-signalling - face to face is the real test. How many of the people who threaten to punch a Tory actually engage in unprovoked physical violence? I'm sure they are all lovely people in real life. And, on the other hand, recall that UKIP employed a transsexual lesbian (later one of their MEPs) - have you ever done that?)
5. This one is not cheerful, but not depressing either. It is entitled "The Western Elite from a Chinese Perspective", but that is not a terribly good title for it - it is more personal and interesting than that makes it sound. Here's one example: "here at Goldman [Sachs], he said, we don’t punish people for losing money for the right reason. I have always loved asking questions, so I asked him, was anyone ever punished for making money for the wrong reason? After giving it some thought, he said that he had not heard of any such thing. And he was right."
6. You remember that article about the impending population collapse in the West? There's more! And it's not that cheerful. Should we worry? Well, "odds are we have to fight a mass-casualty war within the next 2 centuries". Hmm. Leaving that aside, women aren't having as many children as they want. I'm not sure people ask men how many children they want (listen to women! the author is always being told), but it seems that there "are actually very few large low-fertility societies out there that don’t have generous incentives or campaigns to boost fertility in place. Now, most of these are of minimal effectiveness! But their mere existence suggests that lowest-low fertility creates direct disutility for voters, at a minimum", and I suppose voters come in both male and female flavours.
7. Last, but far from least, this, the Warlock Hunt (think witch hunt, but not for witches). An article which a man could not write (and perhaps should not read ...).
As a man I am glad I read the Warlock Hunt article but I think the future may be Mike Pence behaviour and being more careful about employing women. Unintended consequences indeed.
ReplyDeleteIt might be. And beyond that, people might be careful about employing men. If we start to think of men as potentially dangerous characters, liable to assault people without provocation, then why would you want them in your organisation? Better to stick to women. "Mine was the first generation of women allowed the privilege of unchaperoned tutorials with Balliol’s dons. Will mine also be the last?" she asks. Well, Balliol's teaching staff for biomedical sciences (to take an example from here https://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/balliol-people/college-lecturers?field_courses_t_tid=50) is majority female, and the average age of the females is obviously below that of the males. If the teaching staff were 100% female then I'm sure unchaperoned female undergraduates would be welcome, but letting a man into that environment?
DeleteTo me this article reads like someone who has very deeply internalised her own oppression. As a woman that is. E
ReplyDeleteI can understand that. She was, after all, groped by her tutor and I feel ought to have been more angry about that. But on the other hand - and this is the question for all theories of false consciousness -
Deletehow do you test whether someone who honestly and sincerely says X is right about X or has just internalised an oppressive structure persuading them to believe X? Take the Fallon/Hartley-Brewer story: if she says 'it was nothing' then you can say that she has internalised being oppressed; but if she says 'I was petrified; it was an egregious act of oppression' then someone else can say that she has internalised a narrative of victimhood. Or look at it another way: once upon a time, when people said that they enjoyed unusual sexual practices, we (society) took it that that was not, in some deep sense, true, that they were internalising some experience from their childhood and needed therapy to get out of it and become 'normal'; now we say it's different strokes for different folks and it would kink-shaming to try to 'cure' people. Either possibility makes sense: how do you decide? Why not just believe what people say if they are apparently sane, unless and until there is reason to think they are wrong (e.g. Satanic child abuse)? I'm every bit as inclined to believe the non-victim as believe the victim.
Personally I would hit the point of 'reason to think they are wrong' a long time before I got to Satanic child abuse!
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, inequality is so deeply ingrained in every part of our lives that it NEEDS to be constantly pointed out. If a person doesn't believe that, if she doesn't feel she's a victim herself, that's great for her - now shut up and listen to the people who do. There is a moment now to get some momentum and change an attitude. That change is a triumph for feminism and civil rights but it will still be painfully miniscule in the order of things. I'm not overly worried about the moral panic. We already hear enough of that sort of bogus hand-wringing from the men's rights activists and the Daily Mail and we can safely ignore it. The 55 year old white guys will still rule the world like always, they needn't worry.
As for the 'narrative of victimhood' - you present this as negative and indeed it can be debilitating for someone unfortunate enough to be stuck in it. But the Gloria Steinems and MLKs of this world had to reflect and understand the ways in which they were victims and subordinates in order to reach beyond that state. There is strength in a shared victimhood; it comes with a precious ability to reflect on one's situation and understand the way it intersects with others - an ability never learned by an oppressor. It becomes the thing that helps you beat them. Or to be more realistic, the thing that helps you make some excruciatingly small changes for the better while the people who will keep (almost) all their power hurl abuse at you. E
Don't be so sure about intersectionality - we oppressors are learning it too, you know. I went to one of the regular meetings of the UK Patriarchy the other day and you'd be surprised to hear that we now hang out with Brahmins, WaBenzi and really popular girls in American high schools, all reflecting on how our oppressive structures intersect. It was quite jolly, sitting about smoking and reminiscing about the good old days when we were the ones who got to say "shut up and listen to us". But it was a little sad to see how the meetings have shrunk. Did you know we used to have delegates from the leadership of the country as a whole, plus Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Supreme Court? Nowadays they go to meetings of UK Oppressed Victimhood instead. And our youth wing has completely collapsed. Still, we cheered ourselves up by reflecting on our continued domination of the commanding height of the UK Establishment - the IT helpdesk.
DeleteI was being flippant but I’m not dismissing what you are saying. It’s just that my take on it is closer to Caitlin Moran’s – we are all just “the guys”, aren’t we? Regarding each other as ‘Other’, as Victim or Oppressor, is part of the problem, not part of the solution. One of Berlinski’s points is about tactics (look at the paragraph beginning “Women, I’m begging you: Think this through” and ending “What’s in this for us?”). Whatever inequality women suffer in the West nowadays is much less than black people suffered in the US in MLK’s day, but his success lay in appealing to the values shared (or said to be shared) by the population as a whole. That’s how gay marriage happened too. “We just want the same things that you do” is an attractive message to everyone, an attractive call to consensual change, in the way that “you are evil and dangerous and disgusting” really isn’t.
DeleteAlright, alright. But: “whatever inequality woman suffer in the West”? Some women in the West are being raped, beaten and killed. Without really thinking about it I can name three people I know personally who have suffered one of these crimes. Let’s have perspective but let’s also not diminish the problem.
DeleteYou’re right that the inclusivity of the civil rights message helped it succeed. Of course, that is exactly what I’m saying! That is the strength of intersectionality – it should lead to inclusivity, the growth of a community - of course this is the way change happens.
But MLK was remarkable because he inspired followers to hold themselves to a higher standard than the whites oppressing them – he used the ‘us’ and ‘them’ positively. That didn’t exclude the whites from joining their cause. It didn’t say “you are evil and dangerous and disgusting”. It fostered an identity and a community among the African-Americans that moved them beyond victimhood to being part of a group that excluded no one – that is to say, Americans, or, you know, humans.
I’m really agreeing with you. I just think (in fact I know) that there is strength and great comfort to be had in being part of a group.