$ jlc (10,317)

I think that your statement is an accurate representation of our society as it is now. I would remind you, however, that we are trying to overturn at least a couple thousand years of conditioning that firmly told women that their only role was to nurture. Culture also told men that their role was NOT to nurture. Thankfully, men are also breaking out of that pigeonhole. Remember when a man in a birthing room was considered scandalous?

Please take into consideration that the birth rate in Singapore is below replacement rate. Women in Singapore are freely choosing to not nurture to even the extent necessary to replace the population. I, as an individual, do not have a maternal instinct; I have a number of female friends, happily married, who feel the same way. We are normal women; we just don't have any desire to have children.

I believe that it is an error to equate 'an accurate report on how things are now' with 'an inherent predisposition'. I certainly do not consider it any more harmful for a child to follow this generation's dress styles than it was in the 1950's.

Mostly, I wrote on this thread to express that having such an anguished, doom filled, discussion because of 'how children are dressing' is not worthy of this list. I am more than willing to have children (and adults) dressing whichever way the gender-whim-of-the-moment takes them, as long as they work for a living and take responsibility for their own deeds.

Jan

Likewise. Ha. If you define special effects as 'magic' then we are indeed rife with it in all media.

If we focus our ire on irrelevant or even beneficial aspects of social change, we shift our focus from the actually relevant issue: that biological differences exist, but that a statistical norm does not apply to the individual. Science first; all else is subsidiary.

If the only people who wear spike heels are those who love the 'costume' of them, then that is a step forward, in my opinion. If women are not, statistically, as good at math as men (which is quite possible, but not certain) it still does not keep the most brilliant mathematician I have personally met from being a woman.

Insofar as the genders of children are concerned, let the kids run around in jeans and t--shirts until they decide what role they want - and it does not matter a particle to me if the role agrees with their chromosomes or not.

Jan

The Swedish report is of a study; the variables are uncontrolled. The conclusions do not follow the data. For example, it is possible that gender-equality nations also have better economies for non-stem grads and more women choose to take easier classes and still be able to earn a good living.

Also: Since when did the Gulch become anti-choice? I do not know anything about Celine, but the short video did not mention magic or anti-science. Clothes for women are stupid and have been for about 500 years. Women's clothes are based on the assumption that the only thing a woman can do to support herself is sell herself. It is not surprising that, increasingly, 'jeans and t-shirt' are the clothes of choice for people in general.

Jan

There are so many things wrong with this that it was wonderful. I could not keep track, let alone keep score.

Jan

That is not actually accurate in English grammar. "We" can, in English, be either inclusive (We picked up the couch.) or exclusive (We are going to dinner - you are not invited.) It can also apply to groups. Here are some of the definitions of "we" from grammar sites on the Internet.

-Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject: We made it to the lecture hall on time. We are planning a trip to Arizona this winter.
-Used to refer to people in general, including the speaker or writer: "How can we enter the professions and yet remain civilized human beings?” ( Virginia Woolf).
-The plural nominative case of the pronoun of the first person; the word with which a person in speaking or writing denotes a number or company of which he is one, as the subject of an action expressed by a verb.
-We is sometimes, like they, vaguely used for society, people in general, the world, etc.; but when the speaker or writer uses we he identifies himself more or less directly with the statement; when he uses they he implies no such identification.

Example: We drove through the valley. (Only one of us was driving the car, but the whole group was present.)
Example: We discovered how to make fire a million years ago. (That is, ‘we humans’; I was not personally present.)

Jan

"We then use the electric battery in an area where there is a large population stress" I think that this is a valid use of the first person plural, as it does not denote that plurality was necessary for an achievement but does indicate that a single individual driving a single electric car would have no overall affect on a city like Los Angeles, but that 5 million people driving electric cars would alter the city's environment.

That being said, there are times when one must use 'we' in reference to an achievement. Wm and I founded a company: We founded a company. "We" can be simply a pronoun; its not always a political statement.

Jan, very much "I"

This is an excellent example of a study that is absolutely accurate but completely misleading. It is accurate in the amount of pollutants produced by the production of an electric vehicle, but it totally ignores that the crucial datum of 'how this effects the environment' is capable of being organized differently - to a different functional outcome.

Chernobyl has amply demonstrated that the greatest ecological pressure to a given area is the presence of a human population, not whether the environment itself is toxic. Wild foxes, bears, Przewalski horses - all of the wild animals have returned to the empty lands around Chernobyl, and are flourishing there.

One of the unremarked but integral characteristics of a gasoline engine is that it produces pollutants in the same region as where it is driven. Since the greatest concentration of gasoline engines occurs where there is the greatest concentration of people, there are two huge ecological pressures applied to the same area.

An electric engine has the capability of having its pollution phase separate from its use phase. We can put the production facility for electric batteries in a low-population area: we will be introducing a toxic environmental stress (a la Chernobyl) but it will be in the absence of a large population stress. We then use the electric battery in an area where there is a large population stress - but not a toxic stress. Both of these environments will be in, or nearer to, the normal elasticity for which the environment can compensate. We would have cleaner and less noisy cities and wilderness areas where the plants and animals 'only' have the toxic stressor of the production itself.

Of course, this line of reasoning is not acceptable to people who use the Green label. These people want to pretend that there is no toxic output from battery production; perhaps they think that if it takes place in China it 'does not count' or something.

Jan

What are the "vast differences in IQ scores" to which you allude? My most recent reading indicates that the differences exist, but that they are relatively small.

Jan

Of course organic molecules from the flower would alter the structure of water. It may be that the article means to indicate that the water did not contain any such molecules, but the description of the experiment did not make that clear.

This sounds closer to mysticism than to science. At this point, I am not impressed. Perhaps a more detailed report would knock my socks off, but as of right now they are still firmly on my feet.

Jan

This is the problem: "Everywhere I read, everywhere I look, every person I look up to, says Objectivism is greedy, that its wrong,..."

Many people will apply a label to a philosophy, then declare that philosophy is evil. They offer no substantiation, no rationale - just their naked declarations that "Objectivism = greedy" and "greedy = evil" therefore "Objectivism = evil.

Why do you believe them? Why does this cause you stress? It is no different than children calling, "Nyah, nyah, nyah." in a schoolyard. This may matter to another child, but we are not children. We may choose to require proof and logic and not just name calling.

Jan, a true woman of reason
(and I'll smash anyone who says I'm not)

I understand.

"A typical diversity program begins with a questionnaire of true/false statements “designed to help you increase your awareness of diversity and inclusion.” They include, for example, “Diversity training is a matter of compliance, and I’m not biased.” By “correctly” answering these “false”, you have voluntarily chosen to participate because you have self-identified as a flawed individual in need of wise counsel. If you answer “true”, you cannot get credit for completing the module. Can you think of a better way to insult the integrity of your entire work force?"

Actually, the above excerpt is one of the more evil things I have read recently.

Jan

They mis-characterize the women in the prison: at least some of them are there for violent crime. Thus it seems to me that being in a women's prison would be the perfect place for the transwoman to lose her penis. Probably with no need for anesthetic.

Jan

I think that there is a real answer and that, like most things, the answer is partially genetic and partially environmental and - again like most things - the degree to which each individual follows authority falls on a Bell curve.

datum: Social Conformity has a genetic component (per Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley)

datum: Foraging societies are not hierarchical; all known agricultural societies are very hierarchical, tech societies are less hierarchical than agricultural but more than foraging. (per Ian Morris)

datum: It only takes about 5,000 to evolve a new gene. (many)

When you put that together, you have some outside parameters set by society - and whomever fills those parameters better will have more genetic descendants. Up until about 1900, the Earth was basically agricultural, so people who did well in a structured society flourished.

The US is a genetic 'trash heap' for malcontents from Europe, so we have more of the outliers here, and - as society has gone past farming into tech - we have adapted to technology quickly.

Jan

One of the two GSD's I now have, I got off craigslist because I had tracked down (by dint of staking out a stranger's house in Sylmar) the owner of the brother of my dog. I bought a fertile bitch so that I could at least have nephew-pups, but I could not convince the owner to take his 13 year old (note age, Thoritsu) dog to the repro vet to have a sperm donation. His dog died suddenly. My bitch came into season...the next day!

If your wife is dragging her feet, then take your excellent dog to the nearest reproductive vet Today and get a sperm donation frozen. Do not make all of the mistakes I have made!

Jan, likes to be emulate for the good stuff only

It is so hard. I think that talking to her helps.

Jan

Thank you. I wrote him a poem every month for 11 months - still working on the 12th month poem. Here is the one I wrote last April.

Silver on the Hill

On the hillside where you used to run,
The wind bends silver seedheads in the sun,
Rippling with every breathy motion,
Like waves across a green and silver ocean.

I can almost see you running, after rain:
A dark path showing passage through the grain.
But now that path is empty; grass is still.
You’re on the other side of that green hill.

I hope it’s Spring there, on the other side -
Wide sunlit fields like those we used to ride,
No Stygian caves where midnight rivers flow,
Run forward, limned in love, where’er you go.

Coda:
Summer’s here; the grass is turning brown,
The squirrels are fat and lazy in their ground.
I barely see your path, although I strive,
You ran off and left me … still alive.

Janet L. Chennault
20-24 April 2018

I made the mistake of not breeding Lucifer. Please be wiser than I was.

Jan

I thought I might go the way of Dobrien and not get any more dogs when Lucifer died...but my mind over-ruled my sore heart: I actually function better when I have dogs swirling around me, so I got more.

My two two-year-old rescue GSD's are sleeping on the rug in my office as I type this. They are not Lucifer, but they are good companions. Like you - I need someone to sop up the extra love I generate, and who can give true and loyal companionship in exchange.

Jan

Thank you, Chick Ivie. It has been over a year since Lucifer died: I still dream; I still converse; I still cry.

Jan

I lost the most wonderful dog in the world 15 months ago and I miss him every day. He was the joy of my heart. You are lucky to have had such a fine dog for 11 years - and she was fortunate to have you.

Here is a poem I wrote about a friend's dog that died (it is shorter than the ones I wrote about Lucifer, so I will not unduly burden you with poetry).

That bright spark
Has fallen from the sky:
The universe has lost some of its glow.
And we who walk this world, we all know,
This damned, unplanned, good-bye
Leaves us dark.


Jan

The homogenicity of China served it ill in terms of encouraging technical progress; the disparate fractions of Europe gave innovators their choice of environments in which to produce their work. Europe won and the world now marches to the tune of Europe and its offspring colonies.

Like Blarman, I would like to see an increased disparity between the States of the US. I think that CA should be able to choose a totally bonkers leftest enviro-nazi social system if the people who live there want that society.

This has two downsides: (a) the car manufacturers either build to CA standards or have a 'CA packet' that is added to cars sold in that state, (b) I live in CA and may need to depart.

Jan

According to Pinker, one of the inherited tendencies seems to be "Conformance to Social Expectations". These people would probably be Conservatives if it were 'in style' to be conservatives and Libertarians if it were 'fashionable' to be that.

If you want to change your relatives, then change social expectations. Not only will they probably switch, but they will also probably claim that 'this is what they thought all along'. Because the did: what they thought is what Society expected.

Jan

Profit sharing. Stock. Did not matter a whit to any of them. Not one more erg of energy; not one more whit of caring. It just gave the employees who left the company a severance benefit and those people who stayed with the company an occasional magic bonus.

These employees are brilliant and behave well - graciously and ethically - in their personal lives but they have no ambition. They would be just as happy in a socialism; probably happier. They would be glad to trade freedom for security. But they would save your baby from a burning house, or give you back a million dollars you had put with them for safekeeping (and not have stolen a cent).

Needless to say, we have stopped doing both stock and profit sharing. We take care of them; they take care of us. That is working.

Jan

We tried it. SOOO did not work!

Jan