I trust you've seen/heard at least excerpts from the tapes of the 911 operators on 9-11. But in that emotional turmoil accompanying this reviving of that day's events and images, are we missing the real message the dead are sending us?
Look at the locations, the timing and the comments of the victims that have managed to get through the court's hurdles for release. Every one of them is pointing to smoke as their immediate killer. Not one is mentioning any blazing inferno. Any searing heat. The callers were still active, judging by the transcript's times, til at least 10 minutes before the total collapse of the towers.
Yet the WTC towers collapsed so rapidly, not even delayed by pancaking stages, that the official story's inferno would have had to have destroyed the towers' cores from bottom-to-top, including the floors where these calls originated. But steel doesn't melt down at Fahrenheit 451, more like ten times that. What happens in interiors of offices and homes is rapid incineration when the temperatures reach the flash point. In fact, I've read that smoke is a sign of a, relatively speaking, cool fire.
So 10 minutes before the building whooshed to the ground, the interiors of those offices were still below the flash point for all that office and paper mess. That was at least an hour and 15 minutes after the second plane hit. The planes' impact, the planes' contents, none of that has built an inferno in the core after an hour, yielding even temperatures that could ignite office materials from the inferno's heat.
Nor were these floors protected by the asbestos that was built into the lower floors. All that asbestos the WTC owners were trying to avoid 'remediating' was confined to the lower 70-some floors, not where these victims were trapped with no such protection. The heat from any quarter-mile long (full-tower-long) inferno in the core would have swept through these offices, now lacking life support, even sooner than the lower floors where firefighters were preparing to fight the fire they saw and expected to rescue the buildings' occupants.
Whatever brought that steel down was not being seen or experienced by either firefighters below, nor victims above. That's what those tapes and their messages from the dead are telling us. Not that the operators were badly prepared, nor handled the hazards inappropriately.
What this court release of tapes appears to be, with its timing coming on the heels of increasing media attention to the '911Truth' movements, is an attempt to again add the weight of anguish to the facade the real killers and their collaborators hide behind, the lie that our defenses failed, that incompetance and lack of preparedness, were the key to understanding the disaster.
Let's not be so easy to manipulate. Let's absorb the message our dead are telling us. The cause of the towers collapse was not likely the result of plane impacts and towering infernos. Instead we should add the weight of their testimony in the 911 emergency tapes to the accumulating attention to 9-11Truth.
It must be discomfiting the real killers to see even the puzzled mainstream media attention like CNN's program and the article in The New Yorker. How much more alarm must the petition documents filed by the Scholars for 911Truth be arousing in the depths of the minds of the truly guilty.
Or do they sit back like shellgame perpetrators and think this distraction aimed at 911 operators will strengthen their facade of incompetance adequately, that reminders of our trauma will make us want to forget that day's details, that attention stirred up on the topic by the Truth9-11 interest will be muddied with diffuse and unfocussed speculations about peripheral details?
Let's not give them that satisfaction. Let's turn their ploy against them, not let them or their collaborators who benefitted, majorly, escape recognition. We may or may not be able to get the current government to deal with the monstrous reality, but we have other ways to deal with them all, more subtle, more peaceful, more beneficial to all the innocent and more devastating to the guilty.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Temple Grandin and humane slaughter vs Rupert Sheldrake and extended animal consciousness
There's currently a considerable flurry of media and activity surrounding the work of Temple Grandin and her theories of animal behavior. Temple's personal story of achievement and success in spite of an early diagnosis of autism is very inspiring, yet her professional work on animal behavior and her interpretation of social relationships requires careful, though maybe mmomentarily unpleasant, evaluation. Unpleasant because it will open the door to current farm animal handling, including humane slaughter.
Among Temple's claims to validity is her contention that autism gives her clearer insight into animal behavior and experience, particularly consciousness, pain and social relationships. We do not dispute her claims to uniqueness of view, nor her acknowledgement of animal consciousness as real. And Temple's achievements in reducing animal terror in slaughterhouses are amazing and desirable, though open to other interpretations.
Perhaps you're asking yourself why we should even devote the requisite attention to this evaluation if it’s potentially unpleasant. Her focus is on farm animals and not our pets. Perhaps we should be content with her achievements on livestock handling equipment and go back to our own work. But the stir over her books about consciousness, social behavior and animal nature suggests the urgency for our attention because this sort of impact implies either she's touching something fundamental or there's some ulterior motive in media, or both.
We applaud the demonstrations of animal thinking, right up to and including the claims of genius and brilliance in some animals. Read that for yourselves. As a writer, she's amazingly logical and has many fewer blindspots toward animals than our culture delivers. Be prepared though for the unvarnished views, as she draws them clearly.
We have also read with awe the database of animal and human events in Rupert Sheldrake's books and website. Rupert's theories in biology fitting with these collected events, suggest that animals that are our pets and companions, as well as animals in the wild, can intercept our minds’ images. Why not farm animals? And if so, Temple's assessment that animals in well maintained and managed slaughterhouses don't know what is about to befall them and can be humanely stunned instantaneously to make slaughter totally painfree and fearfree is in need of examination.
Her argument is that if they were aware of the slaughter pending, they would bolt and struggle even in the well maintained and managed slaughterhouses, but they don't. Those nightmare panic events appear to be reserved for places where the facilities are poorly kept and the staff poorly directed. Temple's programs have done this, provided caretaking and surroundings that lead to calm animals walking to slaughter. No apparent fear, so she concludes they have no knowledge.
But does it really necessarily mean the animals are unaware and have no knowledge of what is waiting? It is easily conceivable that they are fully aware, that they see that the caretakers are assiduously looking after them, that pain is to be avoided and that they have the solidarity of their fellows to comfort them. Which says a lot about priorities for survival and understandings, implying potentially some code of stoicism or honor. A possibility like this deserves that we examine this.
Temple maintains that we have unspoken and unwritten social agreements with those with whom we have relationships. What about our relationships with animals. Where would these agreements come from and how did we and they get into them?
Humans were once prey and only later developed predator skills. Our defenses and our hunting abilities reinforced one another as well as establishing our new status in nature. Barbara Ehrenreich's Blood Rites describes these interactions and their implications for war glorification as a driving force in our social dealings.
Our prey ancestry is supported by a realization that our digestive system is not carnivore. We are frugivores because our digestive tract is at least a dozen times as long as our spines, and our intestinal tract is sacculated. Our bodies cannot handle the mechanics even of processing meats, which putrefy in the lengthy processes in our guts, become compacted and generally involve health problems in the simple mechanics. Carnivores have sleek, short digestive tracts roughly only a couple times the length of their spines. That's why they can manage carcasses that are not freshly cleaned and assiduously prepared since their systems eliminate the remains of the meal before the negatives coming in the biochemistry -- beyond the mechanics -- does their damage. The bodies of humans and non-carnivores like rodents have been demonstrated to have limited abilities on the chemical side of digestion to safely process the animal protein and all its residual by-products. In labwork and demographics, as well as clinically, there appears to be an animal products' ceiling of about 5%-10% of our calorie intake that can be dealt with safely by our systems. Beyond that the accumulations of negative biochemical processes reduce our immune systems' abilities to cope with routine exposures in nature as well as genetic predispositions. Mice pushed beyond those limits cannot avoid the consequences of carcinogens and undesirable genetic traits, whereas below those limits they can. See Colin Campbell's China Study for the specifics.
Having taken up hunting, humans sought improvements for its hazards and unreliable production, leading to herding and agriculture generally. In the process of hunting, herding and plant cultivating, we made alliances with some of our fellow prey and small predators, allowing us to domesticate some of them. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel traces the benefits and differential development rates around the world that resulted as humans engaged in developing their regionally available domesticable animals. Some of our fellow prey and small predators served as companions, as guards, as transport, as engines, as providers of milk and eggs, in exchange for protection and feeding. Somewhere along the way, hunting and herding led to slaughter. Conceivably the benefits to our fellow domesticable prey as well as the hazards of herding and possible slaughter may have outweighed the benefits and hazards of freedom and other predators. At that point a bargain may have effectively taken shape.
In any event, domestication led to breeding for our selective purposes, not theirs, til we now have farm animals totally dependent on our resources. Their ancestors may have been able to manage in the wild with difficulty, but should anything happen to us suddenly, these creatures would probably not survive unless what removed us from the picture also eliminated their adversaries without diminishing nature's ability to rebound rapidly. Chernobyl's deadzone is a demonstration of how nature can thrive once humans are removed from the scene.
If that breeding for docility has reduced animal intelligence as a recent Discover Magazine article suggested, can today's farm animals be held to the agreement as a matter of ethical dealing? On the other hand, if our science knows as little about measuring animal intelligence as they know about human intelligence, the whole issue of domestication and intelligence is voided and we have only Temple's and Rupert's collected observations on intelligence to rely on.
So where does that leave us on the interpretation of calm in the face of slaughter? Clearly some relationship between herder and domesticated animal was developed and we've acknowledged our fellow animals' range of intelligence as well as their ability to read our minds' images. Particularly after seeing the evidence in Rupert's experiments. Look especially at the case of Nkisi when you read The Sense of Being Stared At. If fear of pain is absent due to the ability of the animals to read mental pictures and see the level of assiduous management, is that enough to overcome survival instincts and rely on a samuraic code of conduct? Are there added bases in the comfort of companions in the picture?
Curiously, an observation from a few perceptive friends who watch the reality TV show "Survivors" suggests that humans in a near parallel situation do choose near-peers over hazard. In the diabolic tradition of bad bargains, the show requires that players choose a member of their 'tribe' for exclusion from continuing each week in the game's simulated wilderness extended trial.
In those games, there apparently is a pattern of choosing the most talented individual to distinguish themselves in the recent challenges to be excluded even though that would seem a predictor of subsequent disaster. The strength of the desire not-to-be-excluded seems to reinforce the peer bond relationship. They then choose the comfort of peers over the improved prospects of survival.
Of course we ourselves have been bred and indoctrinated for a century and a half of compulsory, age-segregated schooling so it's not clear whether this choice would apply among independent, school-free social groups, nor among our wild animals. Surely the contests among wild males for group leadership of their herd or clans, though seldom fatal, has been suggested to be demonstration that wild and training-free animals choose talented life over peer relationships. Of course they are not governed by the diabolic game entirely and other research shows that the secondary males are very successful at reproducing in spite of non-dominance, maybe even moreso than the males pre-occupied with dominance. On the other hand there are the lemmings. Maybe even the whales that beach together.
Farm animals could therefore seem to fit the conjecture that the calm before slaughter may actually be reassurance of conscious knowledge of painfree caretaker handling and the comfort of peer solidarity.
Temple is clearly right about the importance of fear over pain, as she demonstrated by the example of the switch from pain response to defensive behavior in the bull that was suffering from castration but immediately rose to face approaching humans. (How can veterinarians even think of doing such monstrosities without pain-relief! But then again contemporary doctors have practiced circumcision on infant boys without pain-relief for the innocent til relatively recently.) But Temple seems to have overlooked the impact of the comfort of companionship in the absence of pain as well as the samuraic code of honoring an ancient contract.
And while we're thinking about their bravery and comradeship when the likelihood of handling slipups is eliminated, maybe we should also tally up our animal protein intakes and ask why we pursue this demand from our farm animals. Especially when this shortterm gratification in supposed luxury diet leads to longterm sickness and suffering as well as early death. Even the vendors of meat are recognizing that the reduction in stress hormones from bad handling at slaughtertime, is worth the extra costs to their clients. Without even touching the hideous and ethically repugnant subject of factory farm type abuses of the animals as being detrimental to our health through chemical impacts on meat quality.
On top of that health question, on top of the equity question, stands the realization that animal husbandry is more oil-intensive than no-till agriculture and its other organic variations. Research at the agricultural engineering colleges has shown considerable comparability in the productivity of low-oil agriculture, particularly when you factor in longterm dwindling fertility and even losses of usable soil under the contemporary forced, oil-intensive food growing. With oil becoming ever more price-volatile and ultimately requiring infrastructure changes, we as individuals will naturally eventually be making choices. Among those experimenting in alternative lifestyles, the low meat to no meat alternatives, as well as the decentralized agriculture concepts have made promising headway. In the city, the concept of metro-farming is being explored. with the requisite clearing and sharing of land for gardening. Suburban laws with noxious regulations on what owners can and cannot grow are similarly due for removal and rethinking.
Which leaves our companion carnivores, primarily cats but dogs also though they are already omnivores. We've resorted to wildcaught fish processed at freezing temperatures for our cats. Nature doesn't frown on carnivores though they are vulnerable not only to carnivore hazards but also to the variations in prey populations due to omnivore and herbivore hazards. It would seem preferable to choose TNR (Trap, Neutre, Release) as well as enhancing the entire habitat for our human-friendly animals, which would not only sustain the lives of our companions as well as the birds and little critters, but would also give ourselves and our children more leafy, nature-guided environments, precisely the environments that were recently shown to undo tendencies to ADHD type disabilities, environments that have become less common in our denuded landscapes. Leafy, ragged edged beauty.
Which leaves the question of how do we humanely get from where we are to where we should be, certainly ultimately. Each of us is individual, and our lives and resources vary. Just keep the principles in mind, find a step or two to try. Some things work better than others for you or me or others. If we simply keep the targets in mind and keep whittling, we can get there. And remember if you, your family and your companion animals all eat more raw foods, you actually require less food overall, in fact for pure raw food diets, balanced of course, you need only half the caloric intake. Our cat survived a deadly case of hepatic lipidosis because we switched his diet to totally raw meats since his body -- compromised by HL -- had limited ability to process the foods we could get in him. He's more lively and energetic now than ever. So maybe now the cats will cancel their strike, as soon as I post this.
Temple's publications
Among Temple's claims to validity is her contention that autism gives her clearer insight into animal behavior and experience, particularly consciousness, pain and social relationships. We do not dispute her claims to uniqueness of view, nor her acknowledgement of animal consciousness as real. And Temple's achievements in reducing animal terror in slaughterhouses are amazing and desirable, though open to other interpretations.
Perhaps you're asking yourself why we should even devote the requisite attention to this evaluation if it’s potentially unpleasant. Her focus is on farm animals and not our pets. Perhaps we should be content with her achievements on livestock handling equipment and go back to our own work. But the stir over her books about consciousness, social behavior and animal nature suggests the urgency for our attention because this sort of impact implies either she's touching something fundamental or there's some ulterior motive in media, or both.
We applaud the demonstrations of animal thinking, right up to and including the claims of genius and brilliance in some animals. Read that for yourselves. As a writer, she's amazingly logical and has many fewer blindspots toward animals than our culture delivers. Be prepared though for the unvarnished views, as she draws them clearly.
We have also read with awe the database of animal and human events in Rupert Sheldrake's books and website. Rupert's theories in biology fitting with these collected events, suggest that animals that are our pets and companions, as well as animals in the wild, can intercept our minds’ images. Why not farm animals? And if so, Temple's assessment that animals in well maintained and managed slaughterhouses don't know what is about to befall them and can be humanely stunned instantaneously to make slaughter totally painfree and fearfree is in need of examination.
Her argument is that if they were aware of the slaughter pending, they would bolt and struggle even in the well maintained and managed slaughterhouses, but they don't. Those nightmare panic events appear to be reserved for places where the facilities are poorly kept and the staff poorly directed. Temple's programs have done this, provided caretaking and surroundings that lead to calm animals walking to slaughter. No apparent fear, so she concludes they have no knowledge.
But does it really necessarily mean the animals are unaware and have no knowledge of what is waiting? It is easily conceivable that they are fully aware, that they see that the caretakers are assiduously looking after them, that pain is to be avoided and that they have the solidarity of their fellows to comfort them. Which says a lot about priorities for survival and understandings, implying potentially some code of stoicism or honor. A possibility like this deserves that we examine this.
Temple maintains that we have unspoken and unwritten social agreements with those with whom we have relationships. What about our relationships with animals. Where would these agreements come from and how did we and they get into them?
Humans were once prey and only later developed predator skills. Our defenses and our hunting abilities reinforced one another as well as establishing our new status in nature. Barbara Ehrenreich's Blood Rites describes these interactions and their implications for war glorification as a driving force in our social dealings.
Our prey ancestry is supported by a realization that our digestive system is not carnivore. We are frugivores because our digestive tract is at least a dozen times as long as our spines, and our intestinal tract is sacculated. Our bodies cannot handle the mechanics even of processing meats, which putrefy in the lengthy processes in our guts, become compacted and generally involve health problems in the simple mechanics. Carnivores have sleek, short digestive tracts roughly only a couple times the length of their spines. That's why they can manage carcasses that are not freshly cleaned and assiduously prepared since their systems eliminate the remains of the meal before the negatives coming in the biochemistry -- beyond the mechanics -- does their damage. The bodies of humans and non-carnivores like rodents have been demonstrated to have limited abilities on the chemical side of digestion to safely process the animal protein and all its residual by-products. In labwork and demographics, as well as clinically, there appears to be an animal products' ceiling of about 5%-10% of our calorie intake that can be dealt with safely by our systems. Beyond that the accumulations of negative biochemical processes reduce our immune systems' abilities to cope with routine exposures in nature as well as genetic predispositions. Mice pushed beyond those limits cannot avoid the consequences of carcinogens and undesirable genetic traits, whereas below those limits they can. See Colin Campbell's China Study for the specifics.
Having taken up hunting, humans sought improvements for its hazards and unreliable production, leading to herding and agriculture generally. In the process of hunting, herding and plant cultivating, we made alliances with some of our fellow prey and small predators, allowing us to domesticate some of them. Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel traces the benefits and differential development rates around the world that resulted as humans engaged in developing their regionally available domesticable animals. Some of our fellow prey and small predators served as companions, as guards, as transport, as engines, as providers of milk and eggs, in exchange for protection and feeding. Somewhere along the way, hunting and herding led to slaughter. Conceivably the benefits to our fellow domesticable prey as well as the hazards of herding and possible slaughter may have outweighed the benefits and hazards of freedom and other predators. At that point a bargain may have effectively taken shape.
In any event, domestication led to breeding for our selective purposes, not theirs, til we now have farm animals totally dependent on our resources. Their ancestors may have been able to manage in the wild with difficulty, but should anything happen to us suddenly, these creatures would probably not survive unless what removed us from the picture also eliminated their adversaries without diminishing nature's ability to rebound rapidly. Chernobyl's deadzone is a demonstration of how nature can thrive once humans are removed from the scene.
If that breeding for docility has reduced animal intelligence as a recent Discover Magazine article suggested, can today's farm animals be held to the agreement as a matter of ethical dealing? On the other hand, if our science knows as little about measuring animal intelligence as they know about human intelligence, the whole issue of domestication and intelligence is voided and we have only Temple's and Rupert's collected observations on intelligence to rely on.
So where does that leave us on the interpretation of calm in the face of slaughter? Clearly some relationship between herder and domesticated animal was developed and we've acknowledged our fellow animals' range of intelligence as well as their ability to read our minds' images. Particularly after seeing the evidence in Rupert's experiments. Look especially at the case of Nkisi when you read The Sense of Being Stared At. If fear of pain is absent due to the ability of the animals to read mental pictures and see the level of assiduous management, is that enough to overcome survival instincts and rely on a samuraic code of conduct? Are there added bases in the comfort of companions in the picture?
Curiously, an observation from a few perceptive friends who watch the reality TV show "Survivors" suggests that humans in a near parallel situation do choose near-peers over hazard. In the diabolic tradition of bad bargains, the show requires that players choose a member of their 'tribe' for exclusion from continuing each week in the game's simulated wilderness extended trial.
In those games, there apparently is a pattern of choosing the most talented individual to distinguish themselves in the recent challenges to be excluded even though that would seem a predictor of subsequent disaster. The strength of the desire not-to-be-excluded seems to reinforce the peer bond relationship. They then choose the comfort of peers over the improved prospects of survival.
Of course we ourselves have been bred and indoctrinated for a century and a half of compulsory, age-segregated schooling so it's not clear whether this choice would apply among independent, school-free social groups, nor among our wild animals. Surely the contests among wild males for group leadership of their herd or clans, though seldom fatal, has been suggested to be demonstration that wild and training-free animals choose talented life over peer relationships. Of course they are not governed by the diabolic game entirely and other research shows that the secondary males are very successful at reproducing in spite of non-dominance, maybe even moreso than the males pre-occupied with dominance. On the other hand there are the lemmings. Maybe even the whales that beach together.
Farm animals could therefore seem to fit the conjecture that the calm before slaughter may actually be reassurance of conscious knowledge of painfree caretaker handling and the comfort of peer solidarity.
Temple is clearly right about the importance of fear over pain, as she demonstrated by the example of the switch from pain response to defensive behavior in the bull that was suffering from castration but immediately rose to face approaching humans. (How can veterinarians even think of doing such monstrosities without pain-relief! But then again contemporary doctors have practiced circumcision on infant boys without pain-relief for the innocent til relatively recently.) But Temple seems to have overlooked the impact of the comfort of companionship in the absence of pain as well as the samuraic code of honoring an ancient contract.
And while we're thinking about their bravery and comradeship when the likelihood of handling slipups is eliminated, maybe we should also tally up our animal protein intakes and ask why we pursue this demand from our farm animals. Especially when this shortterm gratification in supposed luxury diet leads to longterm sickness and suffering as well as early death. Even the vendors of meat are recognizing that the reduction in stress hormones from bad handling at slaughtertime, is worth the extra costs to their clients. Without even touching the hideous and ethically repugnant subject of factory farm type abuses of the animals as being detrimental to our health through chemical impacts on meat quality.
On top of that health question, on top of the equity question, stands the realization that animal husbandry is more oil-intensive than no-till agriculture and its other organic variations. Research at the agricultural engineering colleges has shown considerable comparability in the productivity of low-oil agriculture, particularly when you factor in longterm dwindling fertility and even losses of usable soil under the contemporary forced, oil-intensive food growing. With oil becoming ever more price-volatile and ultimately requiring infrastructure changes, we as individuals will naturally eventually be making choices. Among those experimenting in alternative lifestyles, the low meat to no meat alternatives, as well as the decentralized agriculture concepts have made promising headway. In the city, the concept of metro-farming is being explored. with the requisite clearing and sharing of land for gardening. Suburban laws with noxious regulations on what owners can and cannot grow are similarly due for removal and rethinking.
Which leaves our companion carnivores, primarily cats but dogs also though they are already omnivores. We've resorted to wildcaught fish processed at freezing temperatures for our cats. Nature doesn't frown on carnivores though they are vulnerable not only to carnivore hazards but also to the variations in prey populations due to omnivore and herbivore hazards. It would seem preferable to choose TNR (Trap, Neutre, Release) as well as enhancing the entire habitat for our human-friendly animals, which would not only sustain the lives of our companions as well as the birds and little critters, but would also give ourselves and our children more leafy, nature-guided environments, precisely the environments that were recently shown to undo tendencies to ADHD type disabilities, environments that have become less common in our denuded landscapes. Leafy, ragged edged beauty.
Which leaves the question of how do we humanely get from where we are to where we should be, certainly ultimately. Each of us is individual, and our lives and resources vary. Just keep the principles in mind, find a step or two to try. Some things work better than others for you or me or others. If we simply keep the targets in mind and keep whittling, we can get there. And remember if you, your family and your companion animals all eat more raw foods, you actually require less food overall, in fact for pure raw food diets, balanced of course, you need only half the caloric intake. Our cat survived a deadly case of hepatic lipidosis because we switched his diet to totally raw meats since his body -- compromised by HL -- had limited ability to process the foods we could get in him. He's more lively and energetic now than ever. So maybe now the cats will cancel their strike, as soon as I post this.
Temple's publications
-
Emergence: Labeled Autistic
Thinking in Pictures and Other Reports from My Life with Autism
Animals in Translation
Unwritten Rules of Social Relationships
Visual Thinking, Sensory, Careers and Medications
Developing Talents
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Opt-out Revolution vs the MothersMovement.Org
Feminism failed? No that's not the implication of the Opt-Out Revolution. Corporate-parity feminism failed, is the implication. Remember all those variations of feminism that feminists claim are under the feminism umbrella? Let's be honest. Corporate-parity feminism did fail. If we can get past this mental block to dealing with the reality at hand, we may have a chance of preventing the whole liberation movement from going under.
The Mothersmovement.org perpetually suggests the need to discuss -- although Judith Stadtman Tucker means 'debunk' -- the Opt-out revolution, so let's accept the invitation to dialog on the topic.
To begin, I should at once illustrate how empty are the promised 'intelligent commentaries', 'shrewd summations', and 'editorial deconstructions' which Tucker's opening article suggests were demolishing the NYT article by Louise Story.
Cupaiuolo's article at Ms, shrewd? The sum total of Christine's summation was 1) that the Story article was about wealthy women's choices -- which is not that amazing a conclusion given the title of the article as well as the content was about Ivy League women -- and 2) that the media doesn't focus much on the major problems of women attempting to pursue a career and motherhood so she added her own personal wishlist to the summation. Why doesn't she just say that this implies that corporate-parity feminism failed, and face it? That's the reason for the blinders on media focus that Tucker and Cupaiuolo both acknowledge. We've got to come to grips with our fears of failure.
And Jack Shafer's deconstruction at Slate is totally pathetic. First he makes an enormous issue of Story's choice of a predominately verbal characterization of her survey results rather than a more numerical presentation -- which lack of specificity he demonizes as 'weasel-words' -- then he writes a followup article to correct the factual errors in his original baseless assumptions about the writer and goes on to now criticize Story's occasional use of numeric specificity so that he can now demonize the survey as weak and not justifying holy numbers. What's his solution? Use another weasel word! But to top off that disastrous attack, someone clued him into a similar NYT article written in 1980 so he reports that he's located one of the women quoted in that article and crows that she feels she was misinterpreted then, that she was highly career oriented. But this actually adds proof to Story's contention without acknowleging that fact. By demonstrating that the interviewee in 1980 was more gung ho than today's group though she apparently said somewhat similar things to be misinterpreted in the article, is in fact adding 'one more anecdote' to show that today's group were 'more realistic' while still saying those sorts of similar things -- which it may be pointed out were confirmed as to the interpretation for this generation's intentions by Story doublechecking the survey's phrasing and comparing results. One might wonder whose side Jack was really on.
When those two promised rebuttals ended up supporting Story, I was beginning to doubt my excitement at finding a mothers' movement. You see, I've been promoting the opt-out concept for several years and experimenting in strategies with more effectiveness than I see around us. Working from the perspective of a mathematical decision analyst, I view the mothers' movement as the key to leveraging our collective future, provided we can recognize the real entanglement we're in. Fortunately entanglements are a mathematician's playtoy.
Although disagreement is the reason for dialog, we have also some fundamental common perceptions. For example, the observation that the 'organization of work' is totally ignored as the primary factor seems to me to be precisely on target. Let's keep that factor in focus.
Back when I entered the career world of the 1970s with my PhD in math in hand, there was an article in Ms that described a young mother, corporate lawyer in the investment world, who took her infant to the office along with the nanny. We had visions of those adjustments, those perks we wanted in order to maintain our connection to our children while being productive. Different perks than the ones that favored men's productivity but no more unjustifiable. If corporate-parity feminism had prevailed, would we have pursued our leadership goals like Winona LaDuke whose mother accompanied her on the Green Party's VP campaign trail in 2000 so that Winona could have her baby with her? But Winona is anti-corporate, an independent. We, who worked the corporate side, don't come anywhere close to that, after 30 years of corporate game playing. The handwriting is on the wall, just some women refuse to see it.
And we're in full agreement with Tucker about the impossibility of 'involved family life while devoting 60 to 80 hours a week to climbing the career ladder.' The 'maternal wall' as Tucker put it is real but the crux of the problem is more complex and depends on understanding the reason for the work week.
The corporate leadership has been groomed for the greed olympics and they are determined to keep women out. Our entire system of wealth is based on excessive consuming, the more we can be driven to consume the greater the apparent wealth. Not real wealth, of course, because this greed devours our infrastructure and progressively leaves our national treasure in quality of life ever more debased. But for media purposes, the appearance of wealth is convincing. And because corporate needs also buy research as well as political clout, the academy and the government both support and depend on greed's success. But even with this re-inforcement, the helm must be guided by a relentless vision sustaining this agenda or risk running aground or collapse. To perpetuate this wealth-generating process requires a stream of suitable leadership, namely individuals who willingly sell their lives, families, and souls for access to the top. To identify and groom that stream, top management has creatively developed an invinceable and unrecognized strategy, using ambitious women as pawns in the game.
Women, especially as caregivers and mothers, are viewed with suspicion anyway in the greed game and are openly discriminated against at top levels, dismissing Title VII as insupportable in such crucial areas as require CEO's undivided attention, lest profit for shareholders be compromised by distraction. Priorities for profit over parity are claimed justified, according to surveys of senior management done by Harlan and Weiss, sometime around 1998, when it was announced at a women's studies conference I was attending at my former alma mater.
To complete the leadership training and mobilize the process of blocking women's entry to the boardroom, a small number of ambitious young women are promoted earlier than their male peers, creating the appearance of favoring women when in reality they have made them, and any like them, targets of jealousy. In the book Why Men Earn More, there is an interesting statistic that confirms the pattern of this ploy. According to the author -- one Warren Farrell, PhD -- of the top women executives 21% are under 40, but of the top male executives, only 1% are under 40. Yes, I'm aware the author is using his data to justify and sanctify corporate human resource practices and either doesn't realize he's given away the game or else figures his spin can handle this tidbit that he finds useful for his ploys. We however are entitled to recognize that this tactic accounts for the abrupt isolation promising women have reported in their description of the glass ceilings, when prior to that invisible ceiling, inclusive team playing had been the pattern. Having thus isolated the more aggressive women from team playing, and sparked the ruthless competition, the rest are easily dealt with by the remaining dynamics. At that point the natural propensity in games, where servile competition for favor is the driving force, takes over making it easy to groom the males most willing to serve greed's agenda with 60-80 hour weeks.
Having seen the nature of the beast's game and knowing where the beast is driving us as a society, it should be apparent that corporate-parity feminism is a lost cause and the Opt-Out Revolution is our only ace in the hole. For the sake of family and women's liberation, we must focus on re-claiming and re-engineering the home to serve as our base of strength. Having done that we can provide re-inforcement for husbands who choose not to be made servile and thus stem the debasing of our national infrastructure and our quality of life.
What is newsworthy about these NYT surveys -- Belkin's and Story's -- is that there's been so little progress after more than a generation. Tucker's saying that four years of college results in more college women remaining in the workforce than women with less-than-college indoctrination only means that more education makes us more vulnerable to corporate ploys and less resistant to powering their blueprints, and *that* certainly merits stepping up the discussion of finding alternate leadership and strategies. Today's young women have been abused by the current women leaders in academia, who advised women students to pursue advanced degrees in areas where these 'leaders' knew the market for degrees was dwindling, figuring they could argue that the expanded pool of women in their specialties justified the promotion of more women academicians, namely themseslves. Using these young women as cannon fodder in the academicians' battles with university administrations is downright immoral, a clear indication of strategies of the impotent.
In order for the women's movement, in particular the mothers' segment to pull off the changes we need we must, right now, deal with some of the mind-viruses that corporate-agenda feminism has slipped into our midst, particularly in the politically ever-present 'accolades' to caregiving as not really bad for 'smart women'.
Tucker must stop the backhanded belittling of at-home motherhood and of spending time with children. I'm sure it's not intentional but this supposed need to acknowledge "menial and mind-numbing" as aspects of care-giving is so unfair. There are menial and mind-numbing chores in any profession, whether it's architecture or system design or law or medicine or real estate or for that matter, horticulture. Why is it de rigeur to label this as a deficiency of at-home motherhood? Properly done, when we settle our focus to those repetitive periods in the workflow, we find they are an amazing opportunity for creative machinations, from looking at problems from different angles to recognizing patterns, which Asian philosophies such as zen have always known.
On the other hand, we should acknowledge that the design of the conventional house, or apartment, is unsuitable for infants, for the elderly and for pets, with kitchen and cleaning and maintenance barely one step removed from frivolous waste and multitudes of servants, merely shrunken in size. And almost never suitable for the productive upheaval of creative endeavors. Complete system redesign is required for the current housing supply, yet women are expected to submit to this imposition and we allow these spaces to inhibit our creative management. Motherhood is not the problem, women's reluctance to wield hammer, saw, screwdriver and wrench is the pressing difficulty.
I'm however puzzled by why Tucker thinks she can claim that it should be a pressing problem that all sorts of economic and social factors need to be dealt with in order for a woman to succeed in arranging time with her child. This problem is ordinary to any species, not just messed up homo sapiens. That some neighborhoods are unsuitable for habitation by anyone is a problem, but not a motherhood problem. The fact that a disproportionate number of mothers appear on poverty lists is a problem of the advice women are given, not a motherhood problem.
Nor is it logical for Tucker to conclude that these young women opting-out in the survey are unaware that you can't be the best father and the best brass-ring pursuer at the same time merely because they recognize it in women. It didn't seem that the survey was structured to determine whether this connection had been made or even whether there was some perceived relativity in the importance of the roles. There are no points awarded fairly to those who claim the young women in the survey said things they never did. Tucker scores no points for this one either.
Although many of Tucker's assertions on conditions are accurate --
We can and should cease channelling energy into frustrating exercises that corporate-parity women get into when they marry, squabbling over who should get to play brass-ring pursuer, because our goal is now for neither to be. By calmly staying on target you can avoid the running in illogical circles inherent in the debasing of caregiving roles. Otherwise you flip-flop, like Tucker, from accusing these young women of duping their intended husbands -- suggesting that their young men should complain about having to conform to the ideal worker regimen to support a wife -- to the equally undesirable accusation of being duped themselves -- the young men will be big reapers, presumeably at the young women's expense? Let's try to keep our vision straight here, we're all being led in circles for the benefit of the greedy. Let's stop allowing them to play us against one another. The only real target worth our efforts is undoing the seduction of the greedy.
But we must also not allow those who lead, or are led, in those circles to make our strategies and control our voices. In one of Tucker's positions, they have misled Tucker as well. Reconsider the following segment of Tucker's article.
So how much is 'single-minded determination' in mothers the problem, and how much is immoral concealment by feminist researchers of the damages of daycare the problem? Those researchers actually showed that the women most satisfied with their daycare service were the women who knew the least about those arrangements and were least involved in them. The researchers spun that as 'enlightenment' on the part of those mothers in achieving freedom. (Children at Home and in Daycare by Clarke-Stewart, Gruber and Fitzgerald, all major spindoctors). That is not my idea of 'ensuring their children receive quality care' as Tucker defined mothering in her opening sentiments. That kind of 'clawing their way to the top' is more than a blight on their children's futures, and the vocal opposition is not *hyperparenting* because any definition of *normal* that describes violent aggression against peers as *behavior variations* is a reprehensible perversion of motherhood. I suggest Tucker reconsider hyperparenting as the natural normal because the corporate-parity feminists' definition is based on lies, as are the solemn declarations of the current elite in government in the service of the 'New American Century' cause.
Beware, too, of other related mind viruses that are perversions of motherhood, this time in the service of concealing the nature of corporate intentions. Corporations have little to gain in diverting women from their former 'smidgen of social power' but a great deal to gain in masquerading as mother-corporate, expert in best practices, claiming our trust. But as Tucker seems to suspect, this is surely a ruse.
Mothering adopted by corporations? In the face of downsizing, how can anyone even grant that idea credibility? What motherhood example is summoned by corporations abandoning their employees here to move operations in order to take advantage of cheaper labor and less environmental infrastructure regulation in some under-developed country? Oh yeah, the feminist-psychologically-researched-normal mother, clawing her way to the top. That's not motherhood, that's simply velvet gloves over an iron fist.
Tucker is rightly leery of something unsavory in the appearance of 'mothering' in corporate best practices, though for the wrong reason. Yet even that tangent reveals clear evidence that Tucker has succumbed to the errors in the corporate-parity feminists' perversion of motherhood.
I object to the dissociation of excellence and motherhood. Tucker's claim is untrue that it is merely an unfortunate complication of the infusion of mothering concepts into corporate shellgames, that these young women with elite opportunities would confuse mothering and the pursuit of excellence. Why shouldn't motherhood be entirely compatible with the desire to excel? Where's the confusion? Somehow the corporate-parity version of motherhood has again displaced the real thing, diminishing it to insignificance and menial tasks and all the rest of the unfair slurs about mind-numbing. There's the confusing twist.
Like the women who reformed public health in the early part of the last century, the corporate parity scheme has been stifled by thinking that women can make progress from positions within the structure. All the significant progress in public health reforms, which by the way occurred due to women's activism, occurred before women were offered inside positions in government. Ask women's historians. Once inside, the rate of progress stalled. We must reclaim our positions in the home, with determination, with new skills, with a clear vision of the playing field. There's the way to leveraging the changes in lifestyle that are needed, not the shellgames of one dime per generation.
Inching our way forward was the sort of thinking exhibited by the immoral generals on the western front in WWI. In the name of their futile strategies they sacrificed young men's lives as cannon fodder. This same immoral use of the younger generation to throw their lives at insurmountable difficulties for lack of a better plan is why feminists outside the corporate-parity agenda should pull the rug out from under the parity leaders. This generation is rightfully exhibiting a sense of the need for more flexibility and less trust of corporate parity dogma.
Tucker's favored disbelievers of this trend, which was correctly observed by Story, show an amazing lack of attention to the time variable. For example, Tucker's proposed time frame on the trend needs rethinking: the young women's mothers were also career women and as such their college attitudes were more than 25-30 years ago, not 10-20. Please, these were not teenage mothers.
But then Tucker's favored numbers slip in the other direction in the use of Hoffnung's work. That research is timewise irrelevant to critiquing Story's conclusion since Story's timeframe reaches 5-10 years *further* back than 1985's college students. No overlap, no cigar. Story's timeframe is closer to my cohort, described earlier as envisioning our children with us.
But think about Hoffnung's research on its own merits. What she's saying again amounts to the fact that corporate-parity feminism has failed. There has been no appreciable change in the conversion of college aged women into the likes of career-first women in a full 20 years of social 'change', one whole percentage point. Career-first will never fly.
But enough analysing of losing strategies. Forget Tucker grasping at academic straws about intersections and narratives and gender. That's just one more losing strategy. If Tucker intends to wait on the academic world for serious consideration of bringing equal power to women, Tucker is in for a long wait because academics are notorious for avoiding activism. Recall the connection between corporate money and research that drives the administration. That 'little' connection is why it's unhealthy for one's research to be "advocacy driven", the term used to restrain action and deny tenure to those who dare to consider activism, by diminishing the merit of advocacy topics and results as being temporary and ephemeral, as opposed to classic, worthy and valuable for credibility, promotion and tenure.
The Opt-Out Revolution is the answer that brings us equal power, if we're smart enough to make it work. Having been experimenting in its strategies for several years now, I believe it's potent, not some flaccid plan for progress in inches. Add them up, total housing redesign, multigenerational alliances, homebased businesses, sustainable consumption, appropriate technology, minimizing governance, natural medicine, progressively self-insuring independence, and unschooling. The pieces can be fitted together into a quality, satisfying lifestyle if you take your time, figure, then refigure your safety net, and gradually take your steps to opt-out and build your better future. And no, based on our results, I don't believe it's a strategy only for the elite wonder girls. Dialog is begun.
The Mothersmovement.org perpetually suggests the need to discuss -- although Judith Stadtman Tucker means 'debunk' -- the Opt-out revolution, so let's accept the invitation to dialog on the topic.
To begin, I should at once illustrate how empty are the promised 'intelligent commentaries', 'shrewd summations', and 'editorial deconstructions' which Tucker's opening article suggests were demolishing the NYT article by Louise Story.
Cupaiuolo's article at Ms, shrewd? The sum total of Christine's summation was 1) that the Story article was about wealthy women's choices -- which is not that amazing a conclusion given the title of the article as well as the content was about Ivy League women -- and 2) that the media doesn't focus much on the major problems of women attempting to pursue a career and motherhood so she added her own personal wishlist to the summation. Why doesn't she just say that this implies that corporate-parity feminism failed, and face it? That's the reason for the blinders on media focus that Tucker and Cupaiuolo both acknowledge. We've got to come to grips with our fears of failure.
And Jack Shafer's deconstruction at Slate is totally pathetic. First he makes an enormous issue of Story's choice of a predominately verbal characterization of her survey results rather than a more numerical presentation -- which lack of specificity he demonizes as 'weasel-words' -- then he writes a followup article to correct the factual errors in his original baseless assumptions about the writer and goes on to now criticize Story's occasional use of numeric specificity so that he can now demonize the survey as weak and not justifying holy numbers. What's his solution? Use another weasel word! But to top off that disastrous attack, someone clued him into a similar NYT article written in 1980 so he reports that he's located one of the women quoted in that article and crows that she feels she was misinterpreted then, that she was highly career oriented. But this actually adds proof to Story's contention without acknowleging that fact. By demonstrating that the interviewee in 1980 was more gung ho than today's group though she apparently said somewhat similar things to be misinterpreted in the article, is in fact adding 'one more anecdote' to show that today's group were 'more realistic' while still saying those sorts of similar things -- which it may be pointed out were confirmed as to the interpretation for this generation's intentions by Story doublechecking the survey's phrasing and comparing results. One might wonder whose side Jack was really on.
When those two promised rebuttals ended up supporting Story, I was beginning to doubt my excitement at finding a mothers' movement. You see, I've been promoting the opt-out concept for several years and experimenting in strategies with more effectiveness than I see around us. Working from the perspective of a mathematical decision analyst, I view the mothers' movement as the key to leveraging our collective future, provided we can recognize the real entanglement we're in. Fortunately entanglements are a mathematician's playtoy.
Although disagreement is the reason for dialog, we have also some fundamental common perceptions. For example, the observation that the 'organization of work' is totally ignored as the primary factor seems to me to be precisely on target. Let's keep that factor in focus.
Back when I entered the career world of the 1970s with my PhD in math in hand, there was an article in Ms that described a young mother, corporate lawyer in the investment world, who took her infant to the office along with the nanny. We had visions of those adjustments, those perks we wanted in order to maintain our connection to our children while being productive. Different perks than the ones that favored men's productivity but no more unjustifiable. If corporate-parity feminism had prevailed, would we have pursued our leadership goals like Winona LaDuke whose mother accompanied her on the Green Party's VP campaign trail in 2000 so that Winona could have her baby with her? But Winona is anti-corporate, an independent. We, who worked the corporate side, don't come anywhere close to that, after 30 years of corporate game playing. The handwriting is on the wall, just some women refuse to see it.
And we're in full agreement with Tucker about the impossibility of 'involved family life while devoting 60 to 80 hours a week to climbing the career ladder.' The 'maternal wall' as Tucker put it is real but the crux of the problem is more complex and depends on understanding the reason for the work week.
The corporate leadership has been groomed for the greed olympics and they are determined to keep women out. Our entire system of wealth is based on excessive consuming, the more we can be driven to consume the greater the apparent wealth. Not real wealth, of course, because this greed devours our infrastructure and progressively leaves our national treasure in quality of life ever more debased. But for media purposes, the appearance of wealth is convincing. And because corporate needs also buy research as well as political clout, the academy and the government both support and depend on greed's success. But even with this re-inforcement, the helm must be guided by a relentless vision sustaining this agenda or risk running aground or collapse. To perpetuate this wealth-generating process requires a stream of suitable leadership, namely individuals who willingly sell their lives, families, and souls for access to the top. To identify and groom that stream, top management has creatively developed an invinceable and unrecognized strategy, using ambitious women as pawns in the game.
Women, especially as caregivers and mothers, are viewed with suspicion anyway in the greed game and are openly discriminated against at top levels, dismissing Title VII as insupportable in such crucial areas as require CEO's undivided attention, lest profit for shareholders be compromised by distraction. Priorities for profit over parity are claimed justified, according to surveys of senior management done by Harlan and Weiss, sometime around 1998, when it was announced at a women's studies conference I was attending at my former alma mater.
To complete the leadership training and mobilize the process of blocking women's entry to the boardroom, a small number of ambitious young women are promoted earlier than their male peers, creating the appearance of favoring women when in reality they have made them, and any like them, targets of jealousy. In the book Why Men Earn More, there is an interesting statistic that confirms the pattern of this ploy. According to the author -- one Warren Farrell, PhD -- of the top women executives 21% are under 40, but of the top male executives, only 1% are under 40. Yes, I'm aware the author is using his data to justify and sanctify corporate human resource practices and either doesn't realize he's given away the game or else figures his spin can handle this tidbit that he finds useful for his ploys. We however are entitled to recognize that this tactic accounts for the abrupt isolation promising women have reported in their description of the glass ceilings, when prior to that invisible ceiling, inclusive team playing had been the pattern. Having thus isolated the more aggressive women from team playing, and sparked the ruthless competition, the rest are easily dealt with by the remaining dynamics. At that point the natural propensity in games, where servile competition for favor is the driving force, takes over making it easy to groom the males most willing to serve greed's agenda with 60-80 hour weeks.
Having seen the nature of the beast's game and knowing where the beast is driving us as a society, it should be apparent that corporate-parity feminism is a lost cause and the Opt-Out Revolution is our only ace in the hole. For the sake of family and women's liberation, we must focus on re-claiming and re-engineering the home to serve as our base of strength. Having done that we can provide re-inforcement for husbands who choose not to be made servile and thus stem the debasing of our national infrastructure and our quality of life.
What is newsworthy about these NYT surveys -- Belkin's and Story's -- is that there's been so little progress after more than a generation. Tucker's saying that four years of college results in more college women remaining in the workforce than women with less-than-college indoctrination only means that more education makes us more vulnerable to corporate ploys and less resistant to powering their blueprints, and *that* certainly merits stepping up the discussion of finding alternate leadership and strategies. Today's young women have been abused by the current women leaders in academia, who advised women students to pursue advanced degrees in areas where these 'leaders' knew the market for degrees was dwindling, figuring they could argue that the expanded pool of women in their specialties justified the promotion of more women academicians, namely themseslves. Using these young women as cannon fodder in the academicians' battles with university administrations is downright immoral, a clear indication of strategies of the impotent.
In order for the women's movement, in particular the mothers' segment to pull off the changes we need we must, right now, deal with some of the mind-viruses that corporate-agenda feminism has slipped into our midst, particularly in the politically ever-present 'accolades' to caregiving as not really bad for 'smart women'.
Tucker must stop the backhanded belittling of at-home motherhood and of spending time with children. I'm sure it's not intentional but this supposed need to acknowledge "menial and mind-numbing" as aspects of care-giving is so unfair. There are menial and mind-numbing chores in any profession, whether it's architecture or system design or law or medicine or real estate or for that matter, horticulture. Why is it de rigeur to label this as a deficiency of at-home motherhood? Properly done, when we settle our focus to those repetitive periods in the workflow, we find they are an amazing opportunity for creative machinations, from looking at problems from different angles to recognizing patterns, which Asian philosophies such as zen have always known.
On the other hand, we should acknowledge that the design of the conventional house, or apartment, is unsuitable for infants, for the elderly and for pets, with kitchen and cleaning and maintenance barely one step removed from frivolous waste and multitudes of servants, merely shrunken in size. And almost never suitable for the productive upheaval of creative endeavors. Complete system redesign is required for the current housing supply, yet women are expected to submit to this imposition and we allow these spaces to inhibit our creative management. Motherhood is not the problem, women's reluctance to wield hammer, saw, screwdriver and wrench is the pressing difficulty.
I'm however puzzled by why Tucker thinks she can claim that it should be a pressing problem that all sorts of economic and social factors need to be dealt with in order for a woman to succeed in arranging time with her child. This problem is ordinary to any species, not just messed up homo sapiens. That some neighborhoods are unsuitable for habitation by anyone is a problem, but not a motherhood problem. The fact that a disproportionate number of mothers appear on poverty lists is a problem of the advice women are given, not a motherhood problem.
Nor is it logical for Tucker to conclude that these young women opting-out in the survey are unaware that you can't be the best father and the best brass-ring pursuer at the same time merely because they recognize it in women. It didn't seem that the survey was structured to determine whether this connection had been made or even whether there was some perceived relativity in the importance of the roles. There are no points awarded fairly to those who claim the young women in the survey said things they never did. Tucker scores no points for this one either.
Although many of Tucker's assertions on conditions are accurate --
- -mothers have made no real inroads into power positions,
-women have added heaps of academic credentials to their resumes,
-prestigeous degrees are irrelevant to effective leadership,
-cronyism is rampant in our US hierarchy with resulting demonstrations of 'deplorable performance' --,
We can and should cease channelling energy into frustrating exercises that corporate-parity women get into when they marry, squabbling over who should get to play brass-ring pursuer, because our goal is now for neither to be. By calmly staying on target you can avoid the running in illogical circles inherent in the debasing of caregiving roles. Otherwise you flip-flop, like Tucker, from accusing these young women of duping their intended husbands -- suggesting that their young men should complain about having to conform to the ideal worker regimen to support a wife -- to the equally undesirable accusation of being duped themselves -- the young men will be big reapers, presumeably at the young women's expense? Let's try to keep our vision straight here, we're all being led in circles for the benefit of the greedy. Let's stop allowing them to play us against one another. The only real target worth our efforts is undoing the seduction of the greedy.
But we must also not allow those who lead, or are led, in those circles to make our strategies and control our voices. In one of Tucker's positions, they have misled Tucker as well. Reconsider the following segment of Tucker's article.
-
"A single-minded determination to claw one's way to the top may be tolerated in childless women, but in mothers that kind of thing is still viewed as an aberration -- and a blight on their children's futures. A University of Pennsylvania freshman quoted by the Times remarked, "I've seen the difference between kids who did have their mothers stay at home and kids who didn't, and it's kind of an obvious difference when you look at it." Well, no, it isn't, not after age four or so -- and studies show the behavioral variations of young children who spend more than 30 hours a week in day care fall well within the normal range of development. So what's going on here?"
So how much is 'single-minded determination' in mothers the problem, and how much is immoral concealment by feminist researchers of the damages of daycare the problem? Those researchers actually showed that the women most satisfied with their daycare service were the women who knew the least about those arrangements and were least involved in them. The researchers spun that as 'enlightenment' on the part of those mothers in achieving freedom. (Children at Home and in Daycare by Clarke-Stewart, Gruber and Fitzgerald, all major spindoctors). That is not my idea of 'ensuring their children receive quality care' as Tucker defined mothering in her opening sentiments. That kind of 'clawing their way to the top' is more than a blight on their children's futures, and the vocal opposition is not *hyperparenting* because any definition of *normal* that describes violent aggression against peers as *behavior variations* is a reprehensible perversion of motherhood. I suggest Tucker reconsider hyperparenting as the natural normal because the corporate-parity feminists' definition is based on lies, as are the solemn declarations of the current elite in government in the service of the 'New American Century' cause.
Beware, too, of other related mind viruses that are perversions of motherhood, this time in the service of concealing the nature of corporate intentions. Corporations have little to gain in diverting women from their former 'smidgen of social power' but a great deal to gain in masquerading as mother-corporate, expert in best practices, claiming our trust. But as Tucker seems to suspect, this is surely a ruse.
Mothering adopted by corporations? In the face of downsizing, how can anyone even grant that idea credibility? What motherhood example is summoned by corporations abandoning their employees here to move operations in order to take advantage of cheaper labor and less environmental infrastructure regulation in some under-developed country? Oh yeah, the feminist-psychologically-researched-normal mother, clawing her way to the top. That's not motherhood, that's simply velvet gloves over an iron fist.
Tucker is rightly leery of something unsavory in the appearance of 'mothering' in corporate best practices, though for the wrong reason. Yet even that tangent reveals clear evidence that Tucker has succumbed to the errors in the corporate-parity feminists' perversion of motherhood.
I object to the dissociation of excellence and motherhood. Tucker's claim is untrue that it is merely an unfortunate complication of the infusion of mothering concepts into corporate shellgames, that these young women with elite opportunities would confuse mothering and the pursuit of excellence. Why shouldn't motherhood be entirely compatible with the desire to excel? Where's the confusion? Somehow the corporate-parity version of motherhood has again displaced the real thing, diminishing it to insignificance and menial tasks and all the rest of the unfair slurs about mind-numbing. There's the confusing twist.
Like the women who reformed public health in the early part of the last century, the corporate parity scheme has been stifled by thinking that women can make progress from positions within the structure. All the significant progress in public health reforms, which by the way occurred due to women's activism, occurred before women were offered inside positions in government. Ask women's historians. Once inside, the rate of progress stalled. We must reclaim our positions in the home, with determination, with new skills, with a clear vision of the playing field. There's the way to leveraging the changes in lifestyle that are needed, not the shellgames of one dime per generation.
Inching our way forward was the sort of thinking exhibited by the immoral generals on the western front in WWI. In the name of their futile strategies they sacrificed young men's lives as cannon fodder. This same immoral use of the younger generation to throw their lives at insurmountable difficulties for lack of a better plan is why feminists outside the corporate-parity agenda should pull the rug out from under the parity leaders. This generation is rightfully exhibiting a sense of the need for more flexibility and less trust of corporate parity dogma.
Tucker's favored disbelievers of this trend, which was correctly observed by Story, show an amazing lack of attention to the time variable. For example, Tucker's proposed time frame on the trend needs rethinking: the young women's mothers were also career women and as such their college attitudes were more than 25-30 years ago, not 10-20. Please, these were not teenage mothers.
But then Tucker's favored numbers slip in the other direction in the use of Hoffnung's work. That research is timewise irrelevant to critiquing Story's conclusion since Story's timeframe reaches 5-10 years *further* back than 1985's college students. No overlap, no cigar. Story's timeframe is closer to my cohort, described earlier as envisioning our children with us.
But think about Hoffnung's research on its own merits. What she's saying again amounts to the fact that corporate-parity feminism has failed. There has been no appreciable change in the conversion of college aged women into the likes of career-first women in a full 20 years of social 'change', one whole percentage point. Career-first will never fly.
But enough analysing of losing strategies. Forget Tucker grasping at academic straws about intersections and narratives and gender. That's just one more losing strategy. If Tucker intends to wait on the academic world for serious consideration of bringing equal power to women, Tucker is in for a long wait because academics are notorious for avoiding activism. Recall the connection between corporate money and research that drives the administration. That 'little' connection is why it's unhealthy for one's research to be "advocacy driven", the term used to restrain action and deny tenure to those who dare to consider activism, by diminishing the merit of advocacy topics and results as being temporary and ephemeral, as opposed to classic, worthy and valuable for credibility, promotion and tenure.
The Opt-Out Revolution is the answer that brings us equal power, if we're smart enough to make it work. Having been experimenting in its strategies for several years now, I believe it's potent, not some flaccid plan for progress in inches. Add them up, total housing redesign, multigenerational alliances, homebased businesses, sustainable consumption, appropriate technology, minimizing governance, natural medicine, progressively self-insuring independence, and unschooling. The pieces can be fitted together into a quality, satisfying lifestyle if you take your time, figure, then refigure your safety net, and gradually take your steps to opt-out and build your better future. And no, based on our results, I don't believe it's a strategy only for the elite wonder girls. Dialog is begun.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Treason, Crackpot Claims and Internet Parallel Processing
One more piece of the Sept11 attack for you to consider before deciding who's attacking us. Have you seen any of the evidence that's accumulating on the pentagon attack? Maybe not. I could go through the pieces but it wouldn't be as stunning as the UK's PentagonStrike website.
OTOH, if IIRC, the site runs pretty fast, so if your connection in-coming is maybe not compatible...
The gist is that the official story of the administration is that Flight 77, a 60ton behemoth with 125' wings and a 150' long fuselage not only made that little 20' high narrow hole in the pentagon before the outerlayer collapsed and that it penetrated through 3 layers of the building, but left nearly nothing recognizable as appropriate sized aircraft parts out on the lawn nor inside the structure.
They claim that it hit going 500some mph, skimming only a couple feet above the ground or slowing only by bouncing on the approach, but in the photos there's no trace of damage of any kind to the landscaping and lawn, perfect for golfing.
And more, all lies, that intelligent media should have uncovered and should have demanded to see the immediately confiscated security cameras' tapes from the Sheraton, the DOD gas station and the highway crossed by whatever delivered the damage. The website video only highlights the glaring discrepancies in the evidence and draws the picture of the official lying process that led to absurdity. We however know from Gulf I that *we*, and a few others, have the drones with guidance controls to execute the flight path and they would usable in other size aircraft, including small commutercraft. And there's no logic nor evidence to connect what's basically drone use to "suicide" bombers. And where exactly is the original Flight 77, someone with authority is behind this. There's no natural Bermuda Triangle in Ohio.
So Now there's a petition being circulated to demand answers from those with that authority, under 'criminal' penalties for treason, which is what such a betrayal warrants. Oh my, how contentious! What crackpots!
Well, before the 'conspiracy theory' label-fears attack you, consider this. What has been going on online among those who detected something unsavory, or thought they did somewhere, is nothing more nor less than the speculations of exactly the type that produces good science, it's called brainstorming, but applied openly to social issues and on a scale of the internet, with all the powers of the wonders of distributed & human-parallel processing, and transparent for everyone to see and kibbitz. Unlike the glossy facade of their opponents, aka the establishment.
There's absolutely nothing crackpot about brainstorming, and if some of those engaged in it are enthused overly about their current discoveries or explanations and the energy of participation that's valid too, until the next better fitting theory gets worked out. There are huge benefits in co-operative research. If a flaw is discovered, so much the better, that's what generates improvement, in science as well as here online doing legal research. It's not fast, especially when you have opponents with the advantages in this case, but progress has been quite amazingly satisfactory.
It's only the "schoolish" who are rigid with fear about making a mistake and who succumb to the labelers. Remember, first and foremost, those who operate in secrecy, which includes most govt and corporations and those with enough money to hire fronts, have a vested interest in our not figuring out their games, hence the primary objective of the conspirators in the secrecy business is to deter you from figuring, to convince us that anyone who does suspect the unsavory is a crackpot.
Yup, it's bad enough being a fringey type, doing things 'different' in order to make headway against the current idiocy -- diversity is only a lipservice word -- now you've gotta endure the crackpot threat in order to see what's being hidden under the rug, because it will bite you.
Maybe 2006 will be better.
OTOH, if IIRC, the site runs pretty fast, so if your connection in-coming is maybe not compatible...
The gist is that the official story of the administration is that Flight 77, a 60ton behemoth with 125' wings and a 150' long fuselage not only made that little 20' high narrow hole in the pentagon before the outerlayer collapsed and that it penetrated through 3 layers of the building, but left nearly nothing recognizable as appropriate sized aircraft parts out on the lawn nor inside the structure.
They claim that it hit going 500some mph, skimming only a couple feet above the ground or slowing only by bouncing on the approach, but in the photos there's no trace of damage of any kind to the landscaping and lawn, perfect for golfing.
And more, all lies, that intelligent media should have uncovered and should have demanded to see the immediately confiscated security cameras' tapes from the Sheraton, the DOD gas station and the highway crossed by whatever delivered the damage. The website video only highlights the glaring discrepancies in the evidence and draws the picture of the official lying process that led to absurdity. We however know from Gulf I that *we*, and a few others, have the drones with guidance controls to execute the flight path and they would usable in other size aircraft, including small commutercraft. And there's no logic nor evidence to connect what's basically drone use to "suicide" bombers. And where exactly is the original Flight 77, someone with authority is behind this. There's no natural Bermuda Triangle in Ohio.
So Now there's a petition being circulated to demand answers from those with that authority, under 'criminal' penalties for treason, which is what such a betrayal warrants. Oh my, how contentious! What crackpots!
Well, before the 'conspiracy theory' label-fears attack you, consider this. What has been going on online among those who detected something unsavory, or thought they did somewhere, is nothing more nor less than the speculations of exactly the type that produces good science, it's called brainstorming, but applied openly to social issues and on a scale of the internet, with all the powers of the wonders of distributed & human-parallel processing, and transparent for everyone to see and kibbitz. Unlike the glossy facade of their opponents, aka the establishment.
There's absolutely nothing crackpot about brainstorming, and if some of those engaged in it are enthused overly about their current discoveries or explanations and the energy of participation that's valid too, until the next better fitting theory gets worked out. There are huge benefits in co-operative research. If a flaw is discovered, so much the better, that's what generates improvement, in science as well as here online doing legal research. It's not fast, especially when you have opponents with the advantages in this case, but progress has been quite amazingly satisfactory.
It's only the "schoolish" who are rigid with fear about making a mistake and who succumb to the labelers. Remember, first and foremost, those who operate in secrecy, which includes most govt and corporations and those with enough money to hire fronts, have a vested interest in our not figuring out their games, hence the primary objective of the conspirators in the secrecy business is to deter you from figuring, to convince us that anyone who does suspect the unsavory is a crackpot.
Yup, it's bad enough being a fringey type, doing things 'different' in order to make headway against the current idiocy -- diversity is only a lipservice word -- now you've gotta endure the crackpot threat in order to see what's being hidden under the rug, because it will bite you.
Maybe 2006 will be better.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Game plan for countering organized psychopathy
We hope we may be seeing signs that those who believed in govt as part of the solution to our economy's problems, via protest to get policy to do the job needed, are beginning to see the futility of that route and hopefully reserve recourse to government and protesting strictly for the events where putting the brakes on the latest outrage is all that's sought.
A recent post at Signs-of-the-Times very nicely identifies the reason for this futility as 'organized psychopathy' and then proceeds to seek a way to break the grip of the forces involved.
Some are accepting now that our daily purchasing activities are empowering exactly those forces that are the cause of our problems and advocating more cognizance of and responsibility for re-directing our own spending. An economic version of think globally, act locally. The suggestions however get murky at that point, with few specifics on proceeding beyond politically correct affiliations such as CSAs (community supported agriculture) and salutes to anti-Walmart.
Having explored CSAs and found them inappropriate for anyone selective in what greens they want to eat, and having reason to believe that Walmart not only holds the key to leveraging our escape from Big Oil but also seems to be targetted primarily for 'class' reasons, I would suggest that a more thought out strategy be developed.
Our approach has consisted of patronizing those sources that promote serious DIY efforts, and those sources that keep the lid on prices of foods, basic groceries, tools and such. Those two agendas seem crucial to the functioning of free people, including the working class. Under this logic, we regularly patronize Home Depo, Krogers and Walmart, AutoZone, etc.
The second segment of the plan is sustainability. We target our expenses very carefully and study the results. We have concluded that energy use and food and healthcare are key areas for improvement in quality while simultaneously reducing quantity. The other element is eliminating isolation, the demon that makes us vulnerable. We advocate the multigenerational household because we can marshal more knowledge, more connections, more work-sharing, more commonspace and tool sharing, while respecting personal privacy.
Further I maintain that people have major misconceptions about how effectively they're performing in these areas and the only way to clear our collective vision is to discuss *numbers*. Then people can identify appropriate targets and devise implementation routes to get them to aggressively doable goals instead of wishful thinking while drowning in depression, victims of expert 'organized psychopathy'.
Our household budget for living expenses, even while living temporarily on rent in preparation for our mortgage-free home, is under $7000/person/year and includes some of our business expenses that get mixed in, yet we live very well, high-speed connectivity of all sorts, top quality foods, plenty of comforts, pets and a sense of ease about possessions. We're doing very well with this sort of agenda and have sustained it for the 5 years at this location even though these sorts of figures would be classified as poverty level and an invitation to intrusion even though the lifestyle clearly is not. With the coming elimination of the rent that figure will drop even further back to half, $3,500/person/year.
Energy is coming in at about $27/person/month and is greatly facilitated by the berm-to-window-level that surrounds this apt. And the figures go on for other budget items, each whittled down over the past 15 years. Food now is running at $120/person/month, using healthy raw foods and bulk buying.
If the entire american workforce lived like this, they'd be healthy, well provided for and competitive on the world market. In addition we would have reigned in the disease of affluenza that consumes our innards, reduced the corporate monsters to serving us instead of being our masters, and empowered our activists to pursue the criminals that stole our voting rights.
So we wholeheartedly support the direction of the posting and think it's time to get some serious focus on implementation. We welcome comparisons in this forum and would like to probe where we could take advantage of even more strategies, because these define the foundations for pursuing our goals of liberty through economic choices.
A recent post at Signs-of-the-Times very nicely identifies the reason for this futility as 'organized psychopathy' and then proceeds to seek a way to break the grip of the forces involved.
Some are accepting now that our daily purchasing activities are empowering exactly those forces that are the cause of our problems and advocating more cognizance of and responsibility for re-directing our own spending. An economic version of think globally, act locally. The suggestions however get murky at that point, with few specifics on proceeding beyond politically correct affiliations such as CSAs (community supported agriculture) and salutes to anti-Walmart.
Having explored CSAs and found them inappropriate for anyone selective in what greens they want to eat, and having reason to believe that Walmart not only holds the key to leveraging our escape from Big Oil but also seems to be targetted primarily for 'class' reasons, I would suggest that a more thought out strategy be developed.
Our approach has consisted of patronizing those sources that promote serious DIY efforts, and those sources that keep the lid on prices of foods, basic groceries, tools and such. Those two agendas seem crucial to the functioning of free people, including the working class. Under this logic, we regularly patronize Home Depo, Krogers and Walmart, AutoZone, etc.
The second segment of the plan is sustainability. We target our expenses very carefully and study the results. We have concluded that energy use and food and healthcare are key areas for improvement in quality while simultaneously reducing quantity. The other element is eliminating isolation, the demon that makes us vulnerable. We advocate the multigenerational household because we can marshal more knowledge, more connections, more work-sharing, more commonspace and tool sharing, while respecting personal privacy.
Further I maintain that people have major misconceptions about how effectively they're performing in these areas and the only way to clear our collective vision is to discuss *numbers*. Then people can identify appropriate targets and devise implementation routes to get them to aggressively doable goals instead of wishful thinking while drowning in depression, victims of expert 'organized psychopathy'.
Our household budget for living expenses, even while living temporarily on rent in preparation for our mortgage-free home, is under $7000/person/year and includes some of our business expenses that get mixed in, yet we live very well, high-speed connectivity of all sorts, top quality foods, plenty of comforts, pets and a sense of ease about possessions. We're doing very well with this sort of agenda and have sustained it for the 5 years at this location even though these sorts of figures would be classified as poverty level and an invitation to intrusion even though the lifestyle clearly is not. With the coming elimination of the rent that figure will drop even further back to half, $3,500/person/year.
Energy is coming in at about $27/person/month and is greatly facilitated by the berm-to-window-level that surrounds this apt. And the figures go on for other budget items, each whittled down over the past 15 years. Food now is running at $120/person/month, using healthy raw foods and bulk buying.
If the entire american workforce lived like this, they'd be healthy, well provided for and competitive on the world market. In addition we would have reigned in the disease of affluenza that consumes our innards, reduced the corporate monsters to serving us instead of being our masters, and empowered our activists to pursue the criminals that stole our voting rights.
So we wholeheartedly support the direction of the posting and think it's time to get some serious focus on implementation. We welcome comparisons in this forum and would like to probe where we could take advantage of even more strategies, because these define the foundations for pursuing our goals of liberty through economic choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)