Of course, it's "critical race theory" but what if we applied the same sort of thinking to the "patriarchy", defining the term as the belief that men and women are different and must be treated differently in some or all components of society, and that history shows and ratifies such treatment.
To me it seems that critical patriarchal theory describes reality, at least some of it.
BBC's Annapour & Co. had an interview with Salman Rushdie, which included some discussion of freedom of speech. He mentioned the difference between the UK and US, with us being the most protective of speech. He was asked about hurting people's feelings--he quoted Stephen Fry as responding: "tough".
I've a somewhat similar reaction, I think, though I'm prone to wavering on hot issues. When the context of speech is a public forum, "tough" is appropriate, because people have the choice of avoiding or participating in a meeting, watching media program, etc. When the context is a classroom where the participant doesn't have a choice, or has less of choice, ideally I'd want to see advance warning.
Rushdie said there's "no right to not be offended", which I think is correct. There is a right to not be surprised.
There's likely some situations which would undermine my position. How about the advocate who intentionally wants to offend, uses terms or takes positions which be offensive? Consider somebody who advocates for the expulsion of one group in contested areas: whether it's the Middle East or Northern Ireland?
In such cases there's the question of the forum: should the person be denied a particular forum? I think they can be, possibly using an economic analysis: what's the cost of allowing participation and what's the possible benefit to the audience?
I added "colorism" to my post of two days ago.
Bottom line is humans are built with emotional responses to the different and strange. We learn to manage/overcome such responses sometimes; in many cases it's individual, in some cases it becomes woven into society and our history.
Just saw this FSA notice. Its title: Updated Schedule for FAXing CCC-941’s to IRS.
The Farm Service Agency has to check with the IRS to see that program participants have an adjusted gross income (AGI) of less than set amounts. Because of restrictions on releasing IRS data, FSA has to provide an authorization signed by the participant--the CCC-941 form. FSA and IRS use fax to transmit and receive the form.
I don't know enough to comment further, but I will. It seems to me if IRS can accept 1040s electronically, they ought to be able to accept 941's electronically. Or it seems as if lawyers/Congress could work out a way to bypass the requirement entirely.
A federal judge issued a temporary injunction against the debt relief for disadvantaged farmers in the last stimulus act.
Al Cross at the Rural Blog reports on a bill which would provide forgiveness of up to $250 K of FSA loans to farmers whose AGI is less than $300K. They'd have to stay in farming for 2 years after receiving the forgiveness. See here for text.
It, of course, is a response to the problems white farmers have with the forgiveness in the law.
Virginia Postrel has a new book on the history of textiles. I gave it to my wife but haven't yet read it myself. Based on online interviews/discussions with her I expect it to be very good. One theory I've developed from them is there's a general parallel between the evolution of the making and use of textiles and the evolution of the growing and eating of food. There's a gradual shift from individual hand labor to mass production and marketing of textiles, just as there's a gradual shift from hand labor to mass production and marketing of food.
I got to this Reuters article on the growing Chinese market for milk and their lack of enough cows to produce it from the Illinois extension website. It sparked my curiosity, so I found this BBC article by Googling. It tries to explain the demand--maybe partially yoghurt, partially other products, partially prestige?
I'm reminded of a book I've blogged about before, Appiah's, The Honor Code. In it he discusses the end of footbinding in China. At roughly the time my aunt and uncle were in China working for the Y Chinese elites were dissing their culture and elevating Western culture as "modern". Foot binding became regarded as old-fashioned, retrograde thinking. I wonder if milk is benefiting by a similar logic.
Half my ancestry is from Northern Ireland, my cousin has written on the history of Ulster, and I remember the start of the Troubles there, when the Catholic/Sinn Fein movement seemed in tune with the student movements in France and Germany, not to mention our civil rights movement.
Bottom line--I've tracked developments there with more interest than elsewhere in Europe or the world for that matter. To me it's an object lesson in human nature, a lesson to put alongside the lesson from Israel/Palestine and the various racial and ethnic conflicts here and abroad. People are able to discern differences in fine distinctions and often use them as the basis for enmity. Such patterns tend to endure through time, and often lead to vicious cycles of eye for an eye.
(Watch the TV series Fauda for another example of the same.)
Here's the Times on the current status. It also seems that there's a cycle at work--the young get riled up, get violent, get exhausted, and there's less violence for a while until a new generation comes along.
