A new series - contributions should be witty, thought-provoking or better still both
Printable View
A new series - contributions should be witty, thought-provoking or better still both
How'd this meme that gender & sex are interchangable terms get started? & when? & why?
"Gender" is the name given to the sexual bias of our perceptions. Perceptions of anything really. Shapes, sounds, words, traits & aspects of thoughts & attitudes or objects (animate or not) etc..., get gender assigned to them through how we sense them. Especially traits, when it comes to people. Who we are, is a complex mix of a multitude of aspects, made up of various traits, that have their own traits & aspects. Every little piece has an assigned gender, whether masculine, feminine, or neuter.
So SRS is now GRS? Doctors physically alter the sex organs to transform someone from one sex to another. There's hormone therapy involved. Male to female or vise versa is "SEX" reassignment. Gender is perception.
We're using "gender" as a euphemism? It isn't working. Sex is still sex, whether the word is a noun verb or adjective. Suddenly rewriting the dictionary confuses the issue, confounds the dialog, & is counterproductive when attempting to converse with anyone outside your own clique.
What we're really talking about is sexual self identity & orientation. That too long for twitter? Gender is part of the discussion, but masculine, feminine, or neuter really doesn't address whether someone is male, female, transforming, or transformed. Doesn't cover orientation or sexuality either. None of the really important physical &/or psychological aspects of the dialog.
Anyway: I could go on, but I think that should be enough to get some shit going. I think it's a poor choice of terminology, & I refuse to use it in this context. Make up a new word that actually means what you're trying to say. Just sayin'...
The questions asked about Gender and Sexuality, like the answers, have become a minefield of contested ideas because there is a confusion between nature and social role that cannot be reconciled. Anne Phillips in an academic but very readable and accessible paper on essentialism and constructionism, writes:
Essentialism is a way of thinking not always so easily distinguished from more innocent forms of generalisation, and what is wrong with it is often a matter of degree rather than categorical embargo. It should be clear, however, that we cannot hope to draw the line between an acceptable and indefensible essentialism in a distinction between the natural and the social.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/30900/1/Wha...28LSERO%29.pdf
Essentialism argues that nature has produced fixed categories, for example Male, and Female, while Constructionism argues that meaning is in fact contingent on social construction and that meaning may be endowed through social role. It is often seen at its clearest in the distinctions people make between human behaviour that is considered to be 'Manly' or 'Effeminate' or in the belief that Men can naturally do things Women cannot do, but where nature is extended to construct a social argument that there are things which a man ought to do which a Woman ought not to do. One example of this is fighting on the front line of a battlefield in uniform.
An obvious problem with essentialism is that it is not itself secure or fixed: nature has created Men and Women who are the building blocks of life through their ability to unite together to procreate and perpetuate the species. Yet nature also produces men and women who are infertile, just as nature produces humans with physical deficiencies -harelip, one lung, blind,etc, or more obviously for HA, intersexed. Nature is thus at one and the same time fixed and contingent. But does this mean gender categories have no meaning? Not at all, because it is only in opposition to the binary concept that a non-binary person can claim their individual identity, otherwise being non-binary would be meaningless, just as the term cisgender only has real meaning when contrasted with transgender. Otherwise, this side and the other side could just as well be the same sides of the same thing, and I don't think that is what is intended.
The confusion arises from the need to argue that a social construction is itself natural, when it can only be contingent- the language of morality steps in to separate and conflict with a concept of rights to give this dilemma political clout even though the distinctions cannot always be resolved. For example, an infertile man is not just a fact of nature, in social terms he can be described, even condemned as 'a failure' because even if married he has produced no children. Thus one man can say to another 'You are not a man in my estimation' even though on all natural markers other than procreation, he is clearly a man. For some, a major weakness of religion is the way in which it attached moral distinctions to natural life, to condemn as an abomination same-sex activities and masturbation (in men) when clearly for those who engage in it, it is natural behaviour -although the shame and guilt associated with masturbation is part of that discourse of 'failure'. This stems from ancient views that men stored semen in their bodies and that it was too precious a liquid to be spilled for nothing. It is also related to the social phobias people have over smells and bodily fluids where white liquids -semen and breast milk- are associated with life, and red liquids -blood shed in anger and menstrual blood- are linked to death and shame and anxiety, with obnoxious odours to match.
A denial of essence can be seen at the core of the concept of Race. The Nazis manipulated the concept of nature to use Race as a measurement of nature in which the Aryans became a Master Race, and the Jews were entirely stripped of nature to become Sub-human. It was, and remains an insult to humanity because Race not only denied the natural reality of being a Jew (or an Aryan, for that matter), but attached a moral judgement to nature and in doing so begged the question which has emerged to produce a narrative in which 'we are all the same', hence the ease with which we condemn the Nazi theory of Race morally, as well as scientifically and politically.
But it is also clear that humans group themselves into apparently identifiable categories, of which 'the nation' is the most obvious, even though it is a social construction as it is surely impossible to be 'naturally' an American, when the history argues every American at some point arrived on the continent from somewhere else. As it happens, I think most Americans would accept that they are a construct, but probably argue that the sense of being American is the natural consequence of centuries of settlement and a sharing of the language, behaviour, values, beliefs, etc that we are told comprise a 'nation'. More specific to the American experience is the fact that the USA was founded on the basis that human beings have Rights. The Constitution thus has become a vibrant document that has never aged, and is to be contrasted to the Magna Carta of 1215 and the 1689 Bill of Rights, both of which were signed in Britain by privileged elites whose primary interests were their own, at a time when the broad mass of people were considered 'subjects' rather than 'citizens'. Even if you follow Charles Beard's famous interpretation of the Constitution as a passport for the privileged, the broad mass of population, with the stunning exception of slaves, were all equally identifiable as citizens, no such fortune for the Brits at the time -indeed, we have only been described as citizens since 1983, before that we were subjects.
This has given issues around identity politics more traction in the USA than in other countries, because the Constitution is open to the view that everyone has Rights, only it remains to be argued precisely what those rights are, and it is in the precision that some have become confused as to what gender rights are, what rights of sexual identity might be, or not be. The paradox also remains that in attempting to replace Nature with Social Role, many of those people arguing for their Rights do so on the basis that their identity is in fact endowed, not by social role or a constructed identity, but -yes you guessed it, by Nature. And from this binary love-hate relationship I see no liberation. It remains for the legislators of the USA to decide what Rights are guaranteed by the Constitution, and for the rest of us to use Human Rights legislation to at least give rights to very very small groups of people, even individuals, because in the grand scheme of things, it really is not that important -however many 'Gay' people there are, they will not prevent the human race from reproducing.
Viva la difference!
Or is it "le" difference?
All this word gender in the Romance languages gets me discumbobulated.
"He's a little idiot from Molenbeek with a petty criminal background - a follower rather than a leader. He has the intellect of an ashtray, his vacuousness is abyssal."
He added: "He is the perfect example of the GTA generation who think they're living in a video game. He and his mates have managed to give an entire religion a bad name. I asked him if he'd read the Koran, which I have, and he replied that he'd read its interpretation on the Internet. For simple minds, it's perfect the Web, it's the most they can grasp."
-The surviving suspect in the attacks in Paris, Salah Abdeslam as described by Belgium's Federal Prosecutor. It puts me in mind of Andreas Baader of the notorious 'Baader-Meinhof' gang that morphed into the 'Red Army Faction' which sent West Germany into a political tailspin of media hysterics and very real arson, murder and fear. The extent to which the Federal Republic and the East German 'socialists' were in fact engaged in a proxy war has been hinted at by the late Christopher Hitchens in the article linked below.
Out of this one understands that just as Baader was a petty criminal with no strong family ties, and that both his partner Gudrun Ensslin and Ulrike Meinhof harboured an incendiary rage with their parents and 'that generation' -ie of the Third Reich- so many of the young men and women who have gone to fight for Daesh in Syria or Iraq appear to have catastrophic relations with their parents whom they see as having rejected an imaginary, pure Islamic way of life to live in the corrupt, infidel West.
In neither case does Marxism or Islam give much of an explanation -Marx was opposed to the violent seizure of state power because his view of socialism as a transition, even a revolutionary transition, was shaped by the conditions in which the working class found themselves and the state in which they lived, hence he knew he was wrong about the Paris Commune of 1871 when he defended it, even if he criticized the 'worker's actions in his notorious pamphlet The Civil War in France. But it is partly on this basis that Rosa Luxemburg attacked Lenin and the Bolsheviks as leaping over a stage of history in 1917, with what we now know were hideous results for Russia. And yet the 'romantic' view of revolutionary violence has been -or was- a key element of the avant garde believing they are -or were- changing history.
In the Baader-Meinhof case, although subsequent analyses added Ulrike Meinhof's Marxist intellectual to Baader's 'man of action' to produce the 'Marxism' of the Red Army Faction, it relies on the view that they took Herbert Marcuse's view that the masses had been co-opted and neutered by capitalism through consumer benefits, to leave only feral youth, hippies and drop-outs as the only free agency left to galvanize the working class to action through attacks on the state. Thus young Muslims believe they are on the fringes of their own society because their parents have sold out, but that by taking the revolutionary road they are paving the way for the 'true Caliphate' that every Muslims will endorse and support, just as the young revolutionaries sacrificing their lives for 'the struggle' will in the end have paved the way for the socialist transition.
Every generation has its cause, and believes its cause to be noble and right, however feeble the ideas that inform it, however unpopular it is, and in spite of the grief it delivers and the damage that it leaves behind. But as Kant once put it, out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing can be made.
Links:
Hitchens on Baader-Menhof
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/20...errillas200908
Karl Marx and the Paris Commune
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/s...-paris-commune
Source of quotes on Salah Abdeslam
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...ded-to-france/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7004536.html
As it's exam season.
Attachment 933075
He's dead but he won't lie down. I refer to one Adolf Hitler, who yet again has become the means by which politicians measure good and evil, or rather, just evil. Ken Livingstone has been pilloried in the press for claiming that Hitler was a Zionist, now former Mayor of London Boris Johnson, lead spokesman of the LEAVE (the EU) campaign and potential leader of the Conservative Party has claimed in an interview with the Sunday Telegraph-
The European Union is pursuing a similar goal to Hitler in trying to create a powerful superstate, Boris Johnson says.
-The article states:
The former mayor of London, who is a keen classical scholar, argues that the past 2,000 years of European history have been characterised by repeated attempts to unify Europe under a single government in order to recover the continent’s lost “golden age” under the Romans.
“Napoleon, Hitler, various people tried this out, and it ends tragically,” he says.
“The EU is an attempt to do this by different methods.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...as-hitler-did/
As if this were not bad enough, a group of like-minded Tory politicians have backed Johnson's point of view.
I find it hard to believe that people who not only read books, but write them should play such cavalier games with the facts of history. The claim that Hitler was a Zionist is meaningless without a context in which the Zionism of Theodor Herzl and the 'Zionism' of Hitler cannot be distinguished, with one advocating a policy for the survival of the Jews while the other advocated a policy to destroy them, you can't find two more opposed positions than life or death.
As for Napoleon, what evidence is there that he wanted to unite Europe under the Tricoleur? At the outset Napoleon fought defensive wars against those European Empires that wanted to destroy the French Revolution, and though Napoleon claimed to be fighting for the freedom of the common man when he did defeat and create new governments in places like Italy they were run by his Generals or members of his family with mixed results, usually poor ones, rather than the 'liberated' people. The invasion of Russia was not designed to unify Russia under one European flag, but a response to Russia's violation of the Treaty of Tilsit and Napoleon's fear that Russia was about to invade and subjugate Poland and threaten French influence in central Europe.
Nor did Hitler want to unite Europe, as Hitler's aim was to create a Thousand Year Old Reich that would stretch far to the East incorporating the Slav people who, being unnecessary for planet Earth were to be exterminated to make way for the Aryans fulfilling the destiny Hitler had decreed for them (and after 'cleansing' the Reich of Jews, Communists, Homosexuals, Gypsies, the Disabled, the mentally challenged, and many more)...I can't think of a project more opposed to the European Union in scope and execution, execution being the operative word.
The analogy with Hitler at least gets these people out of the difficulty of explaining what capitalism is, and why, if they want the UK to operate in a world of free markets, they don't improve their odds in a free market called the -wait for it- European Union, not least because it was their blessed Margaret Thatcher who signed the Single Market Act in 1986.
By all means do not forget the lessons of history, but there are times when Hitler's charred remains are best left where they were found in May 1945 and not whisked up as a warning by those too lazy to think of an alternative. Or it could just be that Boris Johnson has, yet again offered the proof that he is not fit to lead anything other than his dog, if he has one.
Very informative post Stavros. I did not know before reading your post how good or bad the Napoleon analogy was, but anyone who thinks Hitler had a vision of a unified Europe is delusional for all the reasons you say. He considered most European groups to be untermensch and expendable. History can be valuable for drawing parallels, but they have to be carefully drawn out and the distinctions should be pointed out and then reconciled.
When Iran has a Holocaust Cartoon contest pretty soon I am sure Netanyahu will compare the Iranians to the Nazis...and while having such a contest is beneath human dignity, it does not make the Iranian regime like Hitler or the Nazis and Netanyahu will not be able to make a strong appeal to the conscience of others while using such rhetoric. I know this post was not about the Israelis or Netanyahu, but I think it's a reasonable instruction to draw out a principle for universal application.
I frequently tell anti-zionists that they are correct to take Netanyahu and others to task for trying to use the Holocaust in emotionally exploitative ways or for political cover, but ask that they pay attention to that rule as well. It does not mean that there needs to be some sort of rigid moratorium on that era, but only that when someone wants to draw the analogy they do it without evoking toxic emotions and stoking personal prejudice. They must be responsible and cautious, which many politicians and pundits fail to be.
I would add, Broncofan that while it might make more sense for an Israeli to use Hitler as a yardstick when judging the enemies of Israel, the irony is that Netanyahu's politics are rooted in the revisionism of Jabotinsky whose movement had a difficult and not always sympathetic relationship with survivors of the Holocaust, and that some historians and commentators claim it was only after 1967 that both Likud and Labour politicians began using the Third Reich as a reference point in their conflict with the Palestinians.
For me the point is that we don't usually need an analogy with Hitler to establish whether or not a contemporary politician is good or bad, unless of course he or she is a fascist or as close as one can get in which case they invite the challenge. Donald Trump has been labelled a fascist by some silly people, it is nonsense, and annoying because there are plenty of Americans to whom Donald Trump can be compared for better or worse, and it would make more sense too. Just as daft as comparing Trump to Ronald Reagan because the latter was once an actor, whereas Reagan was elected Governor of California and thus had experience of high office before becoming President.
This concluded last night's BBC-2 Newsnight debate on the UK's financial contribution to the EU...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJWUmSbt0Ms
What is more important to you, owning a firearm, or breathing? And who in the US needs a weapon that can kill someone 2 miles away?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36345290
According to the gun policy at Trump Towers (the Chicago manager says, "...we don't allow firearms in the hotel") breathing is more important. I'm down with that.
So you start a thread to cover all burning/non-burning issues, and you come back to guns.
Thought for the day: if Justin Trudeau can explain quantum computing in a sentence, can Donald Trump explain quantum accounting for businessmen in a sentence?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36061712
Timothy Garton Ash’s 10 Principles of Free Speech
-6. We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/bo...ttom-well&_r=0
-Why should I respect someone who believes Jews, Homosexuals, Slavs, Communists and the Disabled should be exterminated? We have equality before the law, and a Nazi or a murderous Islamic fanatic has the same human rights that I have, but why should I respect him, or her?
I've heard others say that; "Respect the person but not their views." It does not make sense to me except to respect them in the most basic sense. Respect their human and civil rights even if you don't respect their views....but not respect in the commonly used sense I hope (that you hold them in the same esteem that you would before they expressed repellent views).
But it's almost a pointless admonition if it means that since even people who have committed crimes have not forfeited all of their rights.
I can agree on most of what he says, but I'll have to admit that #6 is a bit iffy.
Not only is his definition of respect important, but perhaps his definition of 'believer' also...as used in content.
Nobody fucking cares...
Humor from ''The onion".
http://www.theonion.com/article/repo...ng-cares-52974
:joke: I didn't intend to appear to cast aspersions on this thread , I just wanted to interject some humor .
Actually , I liked the idea of this thread the moment I saw it , and I was hoping it would take off.
Sort of a daily dose of brain candy , without the dick picks.
To that end I want to bring up the debate about transgender bathrooms which was in the news here in the States this week.
It seems to me that all sides in this debate have some legitimate concerns and I was wondering what some of you thought.
Also , what's the solution in terms of existing and future infrastructure especially in places like stadiums and airports . Do we go with 3 bathrooms , or 4 or perhaps one with many 'private1 enclosures.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ob...-idUSKCN0YO03Y
Attachment 940949Attachment 940950Attachment 940951
A few thoughts on it:
a) many coffee shops, including well-known chains in the UK have only the one toilet which is used by customers, some have two, one for men one for women, usually if they are larger; aeroplanes and trains just have the one toilet used by all.
b) airports and also some (large) railway stations have toilet facilities for men, women and a third which has a small table to make it easy to change a baby's nappy- a transexual I was travelling instantly chose the baby-changer unit when she needed the loo -and many/most in large facilities also have large stalls for the disabled, so in a sense we already have a 'toilet culture' that can adapt to diverse users.
c) While I can understand why some women would object to a male-to-female transexual using their facilities, assuming they took any notice of it, I am more concerned by those men who seem to think a public toilet is an all-hours sex club where they can jerk off in public and invite another man to share a cubicle.
d) a solution would be for there to be public toilets which are large enough to accommodate diverse users with the essential part being staff who not only keep the place clean but also monitor users, and may also be trained if the user is disabled, an elderly person with dementia or some other manageable issue. The problem is one of the law -should it be a legal requirement on local councils to provide public toilet facilities?- and financial -the UK has lost something like 40% of its public toilets in recent years.
This is an interesting article on it, with additional references to the US situation -
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...public-toilets
The Mile High Club on a commercial plane, is it a myth or does it really happen ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_high_club
Thanks Stavros , for the neat summation of some of the essential issues and the entertaining /informative article from The Statesman on the history and future of the WC.
I agree with the article and Stavros that the answer seems to be a unisex ,multiuse and semi private unit . Also , as Stavros noted , monitoring is a critical issue that could be better addressed , especially in places like airports and stadiums by unisex toilet spaces that can be maintained and monitored with minimal personnel.
I didn’t want to politicize the Pulse thread in general discussion anymore I already have; so for lack of a better place I thought I’d make these remarks here.
I haven’t been right since the shooting in Orlando. I haven’t been sleeping well and I feel nauseous whenever I dwell on the topic. My mind wanders and I can’t focus on my work. I am not afraid. But I am deeply disturbed. There is so much hatred in the air right night I can almost touch it. A third of nation is ecstatic about building a wall and having Mexico pay for it! Another third, good and loving people, applaud businesses that refuse to serve gays, or State workers who refuse to issue marriage licenses, or institutions that refuse to let transgender people use a stall in a public restroom.
As it turns out Omar Mateen was less of a radical Islamist than he was a self-hating gay man. Why are so many gay men driven to hate themselves and other gays? When there is so much general animus directed at the LGBT community by self-promoting politicians, religious zealots, bigots and ignorant sectarians, who can be surprised that some young and confused gay men turn that hatred inward?
Just to dispel the illusion that this sort of violence against gays is confined to persons of one faith or one ethnic group only take a look at these guys:
Pastor Steven Anderson
http://www.towleroad.com/2016/06/ste...erson-orlando/
Pastor Roger Jimenez
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO0j5pgrcUM
I haven’t watched either of these links all the way through, because I get sick viewing them.
I don’t think religion is the problem here. Certainly banning Muslims from entering the country is probably the weakest and most ineffective approach to the problem of violence against gays that anyone has ever suggested - not to mention religious tests are anathema the First Amendment.
What would be an effective curb on all gun violence of this type is a serious assault weapons ban or at least some serious regulation on who can legally buy and own an assault weapon. Perhaps we should allow the FBI to automate their current gun registry. By law it’s all on sheaves and sheaves of paper, because the NRA lobbied against allowing the registry to be computerized. The NRA claims only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. There was an armed off-duty police officer at the Pulse, but he was not able save forty-nine people from slaughter. My question is, “Why do we let bad guys have guns in the first place?”
The saw Trump the other day accuse Hillary of wanting to get rid of the Second Amendment entirely. Of course neither Hillary nor any other Democrat in office is suggesting any such thing. On the other hand, it seems to me Trump is out to totally gut the First Amendment. He wants a religious test on immigration. He bans news organizations he doesn’t like (most recently the Washington Post) from attending his rallies and press conferences. He wants to open up libel laws against news organizations.
First Amendment, Second Amendment - these are asides. The issue is ignorance and hatred. I know most people here don’t need to be reminded. I just writing for my own peace of mind. But still, I just want to remind people to be open-hearted and open-minded. With others, and with themselves.
P.S. Sorry for the typos.
As far as defamation laws go, most people only know the standard courts apply for public figures who are suing. The only reason this standard is more exacting than the common law standard is because of the first amendment. The precedent is over fifty years old and was set our in New York Times v. Sullivan. It is unconstitutional for a public figure to be able to successfully sue for defamation unless they show the defamatory (meaning harmful to reputation) statement about them was false and the defendant either knew it was false or was reckless regarding its falsity. I don't even think our courts recognize foreign defamation judgments unless they comply with our first amendment standards.
So good luck for Donald Trump...he does not even know by which branch of government our libel laws are determined. It would be unbelievable if he could appoint someone to the Supreme Court nuts enough to change this precedent. I don't even think any of the current guys on the court would go for it.
If killing people was the solution to our problems, we would not have any.
Courageous Republicans won't allow guns at their convention.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...nvention-guns/
That is some crazy shit ! Imagine 'open carry' at a national political convention !?
And now , for something completely different , or maybe not .
Personality disorders.
I am amazed by the number of people I have known over the years,and now know with severe personality disorders . This includes friends, people in the workplace and extended family.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...lity-disorders
But what really disturbs me is the abysmal lack of understanding on the part of the friends , family and coworkers in identifying and dealing with such people.
A 2007 National Institutes of Mental Health study found that roughly 9 percent of US adults have a personality disorder.
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science...pulation.shtml
I have seen families and careers severely damaged or ruined and friends and families permanently scarred .This due largely to the general inability of most people to identify and understand personality disorders in the people they encounter in everyday life.
Sure , our 'instinct' may tell us that "so and so " is difficult or unpleasant or unreliable and warn us away from more intimate personal or professional association with that person. But what do you do if that person is your boss or girlfriend ,wife or father?
Fortunately , they are easy to spot with a little knowledge.
Take a look at the 10 personality disorders outlined above and perhaps you will see someone you know.
The problem may be that ever since it became 'normal' to describe other people as 'mad' the stigma has got in the way of understanding. Yes, it is the case that we try to analyse the reasons behind the most terrible crimes, and produce a reasoned explanation, but the lingering thought for many is that the criminal was 'mad' because this helps to separate them out from the rest of us and measure that distance as a way of feeling safe. And yet at any one time in the Mall we may be passing someone who is convinced that he is being followed by a secret army of people who communicate with each other by whistling. Every time he hears someone whistle, he knows they are watching him. Or the person who believes her sister is plotting with another sister to sell their parent's home whe they die and not tell her. Or those who think the world economy is run by a secret government made up of the Illuminati, the Bilderberg Group, the Bohemian Grove and, of course 'the Jews'.
The real problem is that helping people with behavioural and psychological problems so that they can fit into the social structures we have, and work and enjoy a reasonable degree of interaction with others, and not feel isolated, alone or alienated, is that it costs money -a lot of money, and the creation of social services across the country. And mental health has been the Cinderalla of social services for as long as I can recall, and has yet to make it to the Ball.
Rudolph Giuliani has offered the citizens of the USA the following insight into crime in the USA-
“If I were a black father and I was concerned about the safety of my child – really concerned about it and not in a politically activist sense – I would say, ‘Be very respectful to the police, most of them are good, some can be very bad and just be very careful’,” Mr Giuliani explained.
“I'd also say, ‘Be very careful of those kids in the neighbourhood, don't get involved with them because son, there's a 99 per cent chance they're going to kill you, not the police’.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7129926.html
As a large proportion of women in the US are murdered or raped by their husbands, partners or men known to them, would Rudolph Giuliani suggest that women not get involved -let alone consider marriage and the family- with 'the kids in the neighbourhood' who are more likely to rape and kill them than the police? But I guess in the long term it would help reduce overcrowding in neglected urban neighbourhoods...
Have we not moved on from the 'fascinating sociology' of Daniel Moynihan and Charles Murray?
Let's see....when it comes to rating this chick...I would give her,....oh,.....an EIGHT.
https://s31.postimg.org/3pbsnrcdn/image.jpgfree image hosting
If I told you the stories about working with black guys in their twenties in Washington DC I'd be branded a racist, for sure. When it comes to blacks and whites, we are talking two completely different races, and two completely different realities.
Guiliani is fishing for a paying gig on Fox News, plain and simple.
Everybody is imperfect, and the TRUTH is decided by adding up five different people's opinions and dividing by five.
What it is is what it is and it's a curse or a blessing, all depending on the way you look at it.
Black mothers and fathers DO instruct sons and daughters on how to behave when pull over by the police. Don’t be confrontational. Keep your hands in sight. Ask permission to reach for the registration, etc. Mr. Giuliani is more interested, with his remarks, in propagating old stereotypes than passing on advice. Where does he advise police officers to be respectful as well?
Children are color are warned of all sorts of things. Stay away from gangs, stay away from drugs. Should urban children stay indoors all day? Children become socialized by their interactions with other children and young children, whether in the city or the suburbs usually find their playmates in the neighborhood. Instead of addressing the question of what Black families presumably aren’t telling their children, Giuliani should be addressing the economic and institutional reasons why urban neighborhoods have become such difficult places for raising kids.
I thank you for your analogy with women and marriage.
__________________________________________________ _
If I told you the stories about working with white guys when I worked as a part time janitor in the summers for aluminum foundry, you’d brand them racist, crude and homophobic. I think factories, foundries, construction etc. aren’t conducive to polite behaviors. Manual labor was a hard way to make a living half a century ago and even more so today. Working men are often frustrated, trying to impress each other and bolster their own egos. There are no races - we’re just people and we live in the same world. The problem is that we perceive each other as different and often as in competition with each other.
[QUOTE=buttslinger;1704670]
If I told you the stories about working with black guys in their twenties in Washington DC I'd be branded a racist, for sure. When it comes to blacks and whites, we are talking two completely different races, and two completely different realities.
/QUOTE]
I also worked with Black people and can't say I noticed any substantial differences between us, other than their repertoire of swear words, and a tendency to prefer Rum over Whisky, perhaps due to their Caribbean heritage.
There's one guy interviewing these days for the job of President of the United States, and he's certainly pushing the idea that we belong to distinct races and tribes and that we are all in competition with each other for jobs, for housing, for health care, for education etc. We could all compete individually, or by tribe for these things; or we could cooperate and provide these things for ourselves and each other. Some of us might make better deals for ourselves if we go it alone - but then there's the other 99.9% where you and I by happenstance fall.
BTW: I give that woman a ten, just for being able to hold that many huge juggs - I mean beer MUGS - without a tray. She can be my friend any day.
I'd say poor people in general focus on social interests, while more affluent people cultivate their own personal interests.
I would add that the Republican Party steers legislature toward the interests of the rich, while the Democrats legislate towards the interests of the middle class. Nobody wants to carry poor people. Poor people have each other, and neither Stavros nor Trish would be welcomed into their circle.
I think you will find that the poor spend most of their time trying to survive, and that it was the depression of the 1930s that established the Democrats as the party of the poor as well as the middle class. But just as with 'New Labour' under Tony Blair, the Clinton era had to confront a declining blue collar base as heavy industry in the US declined as a major source of work for the working class who graduated from High School but did not go on to university. As with 'New Labour' the Democrats recruited local government white collar workers and high tech graduates with a working class background as a substitute for the declining blue collar base, but in the US case the obsession with 'working people' and the 'Middle Class' makes one wonder if the Democrats have in fact turned away from the poor and the unemployed, and this is where I see the sharp difference between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.
Mrs Clinton's economic programme looks to me like an expansion of Federal agency jobs funded by the tax-payer, which is fine for many middle class people, including the Black Middle Class, but there are too many Americans in poor neighborhoods or regions of the country leaving school unable to read or write to the level required to push paper around an office or filter a thousand emails a day. This is one reason why education is critical for the future of the USA, and why it beggars belief that it does not have a whole section to itself on Donald Trump's website where it doesn't even rank as a 'Position'. A country that does not invest in education is not investing in the future and causing more problems with high cost consequences than it needs or should want.