Browsed by
Category: Academia

Recent Posts in My Blogosphere

Recent Posts in My Blogosphere

I haven’t done a roundup in a while. For each blog (alpha-order) I’ve selected my favorite among recent posts.

I hope that you find a few interesting things to read here, but I remember now why I don’t do this very often. (smile)

David Horowitz and “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week”

David Horowitz and “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week”

There is an important post today at The Progress Report about the “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” program run by David Horowitz at college campuses this week.

The whole crusade is counter-productive in a number of ways, but it’s cleverly planned.

Of course, mislabeling international terrorism is not a great idea. What we are dealing with bears little resemblance to definitions of fascism, and tying it to Islam as a religion rather than toward the violent radicals of any religion (or none) is misleading and just mean. Terrorism is a method, not a religion.

The real intent of Horowitz’s program is to attack the political left – he really must have had an amazing conversion experience.

Meanwhile, voices like his move the entire discourse more toward the right. Fox News starts to look centrist… Oh yeah, other speakers scheduled for campus appearances: Ann Coulter, Robert Spencer, Rick Santorum. It’s about academic freedom….riiiiiight.

I’m glad Bertrand Russell isn’t alive to see his formerly Marxist aide turned into this…

Bertrand Russell, a longtime hero of mine, won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 – “in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought.”

But Russell was an amazing character; maybe he would be more sanguine about it…

It is a waste of energy to be angry with a man who behaves badly, just as it is to be angry with a car that won’t go. – Bertrand Russell

Horowitz has claimed such things as that there are 50,000 American professors who are “anti-American” and “identify with the terrorists,” that John Kerry was happy to see Communists win in Vietnam, that the Senate Intelligence Committee “exonerated” President Bush’s claim in the 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, and the like. His backers are interesting, too.

Horowitz’s ability to co-opt the language of oppression and turn a supposedly theoretical manifesto into his personal soapbox would put even the most emo slam poet on your campus to shame. –Amy Schiller, “Indoctrinating You?” CampusProgress.org.

Sad to say, he’ll be spewing at Emory today. No-one can claim it’s not a place for open debate, right? Sigh. I’m not fooled by the framing. I’ll take a cue from Bertrand Russell; since Horowitz’s aims and methods are repugnant to me, I simply won’t be participating in these events. Sometimes it’s a time to protest, sometimes it’s a time to vote with your feet. I’m hoping for a lot of no-shows.

More information:

Last Tickle Test – Gender Identity

Last Tickle Test – Gender Identity

I usually enjoy taking the tests at Tickle, but this is the last one I’ll do, I think. They have gotten too aggressive with the Focalex ads, requiring several pages of skipping before you can take the test. There’s even an ad when you’re done. Also, they don’t provide html to post the results.

I’m always fascinated by “what counts” as a masculine or feminine “trait.” It’s so culturally driven. And I often disagree.

I’m 53% masculine and 47% feminine.

When we compare your results with other women it shows that you are somewhat more masculine than average. What does it mean for a woman to be masculine? Masculinity in Western culture involves participation in physical activity and strong analytical skills. But masculinity is more than just liking sports and analyzing problems.

Of the four gender types identified (highly masculine, highly feminine, androgynous, sex-role transcendent), I am classified as androgynous:

Androgynous: People who are androgynous have both strong masculine and strong feminine qualities. Androgynous people tend to be both action and people oriented, and are usually able to successfully take on a diverse range of roles that cross gender-role boundaries.

There were interesting charts showing norms for men and women on a variety of qualities (and where I plot on those) but since they were using scripting there really isn’t any way to display those here (at least not without spending WAYYY too much time on it).

Here’s the verbiage, though:

Traditional Masculine Qualities:

Sports Fan: You scored in the mid-range of liking sports compared to other people. You’re physically active, but it’s not an obsession. You may be more of a spectator than a player when it comes to sports. When making choices about how you spend your time, there are occasions when you really want to be active and at other times you’d rather be more sedentary. You may get competitive at times, but it’s not a defining quality.

Decisive: You probably have no trouble making decisions. You’re someone who almost always has your wits about you. You are generally capable of dealing with difficult, high-pressure situations and handling the consequences of your actions. In fact, you may even seek out roles and situations that demand your sharp decision-making skills.

Leader: You are likely to have exceptionally strong leadership abilities. You tend to be a self-confident, goal-focused, trailblazer. Being successful in life is probably one of the most important things to you. You’re not likely to back away from an opportunity to take charge. You may, in fact, seek out settings in which you can play a leadership role.

Aggressive: You tend to be high in aggressiveness. When you’re provoked you’re most likely to respond in attack mode. You may not be the one to escalate a conflict, but you’re likely to return insult for insult and blow for blow. You probably have a very short temper. You tend to be someone who feels strongly about protecting and defending what’s yours, whether that’s property or people.

Analytical: You are highly analytical. Complex thinking and problem solving are activities in which you are likely to engage regularly. You tend to enjoy stretching your mental muscles. When someone asks you an explanatory question, such as “How does that work?” you may be prone to give a more detailed answer than necessary. You are generally drawn to roles and situations in which you can exercise your strong analytical skills.

Principled Individualist: You are unique. You probably feel that you are very much your own person with a strong sense of self, and that there is no one quite like you. You are likely to have a clear sense of right and wrong, and seek to conduct yourself in a way that lives up to your own high standards. You have an internal ethical system and living according to your own rules is what matters most to you. Your approach to life tends to be positive and hopeful.

Traditional Feminine Qualities:

Cheerful: No one is likely to describe you as perky. You can even be a bit cynical or pessimistic. You don’t tend to be someone who simply paints a smile on your face even if you’re feeling down. When you’re happy, you’re happy, and when you’re not, you’re not. Other people who are extremely perky, peppy and sunny may even annoy you.

Compassionate: You are moderately caring and compassionate. You have a warm and tenderhearted side, but you may be more likely to show it to those who are closest to you and not just to everyone. You’re comfortable expressing affection in certain situations. You might be moved to help every person who needs it, but you’re also aware of the practical limitations of trying to fix every wrong in the world. While you sometimes find yourself in care-giving situations, you probably don’t actively seek them out.

Gentle: You are not especially gentle. You tend more toward energy, power and intensity in your demeanor. When you get angry or frustrated, you tend to express it. You’re not likely to want to quickly smooth things over or just turn the other cheek. You may find that quiet, calm, tranquil settings can be boring. Although you’re not opposed to peacefulness, you thrive on a certain amount of stress. You may even pride yourself on being a little rough around the edges.

Understanding: You understand people fairly well. You are able to see things from others’ perspectives and can usually empathize with people’s problems and struggles. You may have some intuition and insight into people’s motivations and goals. It’s likely that you have a friend or two that turn to you when they have problems. You might have toyed with the idea of being a therapist. It’s likely that you find yourself in roles and situations that call upon your skill in understanding people, even if you don’t actively seek these out.

Timid: You are not very timid. In a crowd you tend to stand out. You generally enjoy attention from others and may even seek the spotlight. You’re fairly self-confident and are not easily embarrassed. In a group setting you can usually jump right into the conversation. You can be very social and outgoing. When you first meet someone your self-confidence helps you feel comfortable and you’re probably good at making the other person feel comfortable as well. When you feel strongly about something, whether it’s positive or negative, you tend to have little trouble expressing your feelings.

Trusting: You are not very trusting. When someone tells you something you may require independent verification before you really believe it. You tend to be very good at telling when someone is lying to you, and it is probably rare for someone to deceive you for any length of time. You’re not looking for the worst in people, but you tend to approach life with the belief that things aren’t always exactly the way they appear on the surface. You tend to possess a healthy sense of skepticism.

Tickle Statement:

Tickle’s own research used the established measures of psychology as a starting point and we conducted our own studies to discover what masculinity and femininity mean today. It may be somewhat surprising to learn that society’s beliefs about masculinity and femininity haven’t changed all that much. What has changed is that in current times more people are scoring as androgynous and sex-role transcendent. This area continues to be an active research topic in psychology because gender identity can affect how we think, behave, and communicate.

Since I work for a company that specializes in workforce assessments and strategies, I can’t help but notice that these gender traits might be better described in the neutral language of DISC behavioral styles. For example, the power components (aggressive/timid) are about the use of force, the D quadrant. I’ve seen plenty of High D women and Low D men.

The whole sports thing has nothing to do with gender at all – and they are really talking about all kinds of different things – loyalty to a team and vicarious adrenaline and war games and exercise and health…. A dedicated ballet dancer is then…what?…super masculine?

Some of the categories are really more about prioritizing one’s passions and values – So, a kind compassionate man would be…..super feminine?

And they leave things out, such as communication styles (even though they give examples, such as Deborah Tanner).

On “trusting” – does this mean trusting of people? Which people? All people? Family, friends, strangers, in-group, out-group, authority figures? Does it also include trust with regard to tasks and objects – lower standards with regard to information, products, methods?

This just isn’t a good way to organize. I really wonder about where they got the “norms” too.

So, these things are fun, but I don’t really see that a breakdown in terms of gender makes any sense.

My own opinion is that there are behaviors and values that are socially coded as “masculine” or “feminine.” These break down too – for example, along class lines.

I don’t really think that there is any such thing (not in terms of behavior and personality), as an inherently “gender-specific trait.”

And of course none of this has anything to do with gender “identity,” which is a recent social construct that plays most often in debates and arguments about sexuality, not gender.

Virus of the Mind

Virus of the Mind

Oh, no… I completely missed this song by Heather Nova.

It would have been great to have had “Virus of the Mind” for the dissertation….

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqXIhKIOcjU[/youtube]

HEATHER NOVA
South 2001
Virus of The Mind

Well I was watching this talk show the other day
And on it there was this guy and he was saying
When you let other people tell you what’s right
When you leave your instinct and your own truth behind he said
That’s a virus of the mind. that’s a virus of the mind
I guess it’s kind of like losing your sight; for a
Second you think that they might be right, and it
Feeds the doubts you have inside, and it
Almost starts to feel like a crime
To follow your own rhythm and rhyme

Yeah I’m pretty happy living in my own sweet time I’m pretty happy
And I don’t need your virus of the mind

Well I went to this party thing last night
A lot of people I hadn’t seen in a long time
And they wanted to know about my life,
But making me feel like it wasn’t quite right
Like where’s your kids and where’s your car?
I said I don’t have either but I have a guitar
And I ended up feeling like I was a freak
So I found some wine and something to eat
And I talked to a dog to pass the time
Told myself I’m doing fine,
It’s just a virus of the mind
It’s just a virus of the mind

Yeah I’m pretty happy living in my own sweet time I’m pretty happy
And I don’t need your virus of the mind

It’s in the deep of your soul
It’s on the tip of your tongue
It’s the feeling you get when you feel young
It’s in the sound of the beat
It’s in the base of your spine
It’s in your gut reaction, yeah every time
But they tell you what you should have,
They tell you who you should be
It’s in the pictures and ads and in the magazines
I’m kicking it off like a bug in the breeze
’cause is anyone out there inside me?
I said is anyone out there inside me?
I say is anyone?

Conservative Psychological Manipulations

Conservative Psychological Manipulations

These videos by Roy Eidelson examine several ways that American conservatives manipulate public opinion – and how this psychological warfare can be countered and resisted. Not flashy at all – he should probably have someone else do the voiceover – but nicely argued.

“Dangerous Ideas: How Conservatives Exploit Our Five Core Concerns” (above) describes how today’s conservatives have used appeals to our core concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness in order to further a narrow ideological agenda that actually benefits very few while leaving most of us worse off.

[googlevideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=844699642769511518[/googlevideo]

Here he examines these same psychological framings as they apply to war-mongering (special emphasis on Iraq).

“Resisting the Drums of War” describes how the misguided and destructive war in Iraq was promoted by targeting our concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. The continued occupation of Iraq–or an attack on Iran–will likely be sold to us in much the same way.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttcV6NIvkqE[/youtube]

You Have Owners

You Have Owners

George Carlin on why educational problems in America won’t get fixed – despite our need to be competitive.

Warning: language

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccYoVnBc_fk[/youtube]