As I recently hinted, I’ve been doing a lot more thinking than writing these past few days, so I thought I should try and organise my thoughts so as not to forget anything. This then is a list-cum-linkfarm of various things I intend (maybe) to blog about (or perhaps just comment), or for which I’ve previously indicated I such an intention.
Off-site posts to which I want to respond.:
- My surreply to Cathy Young is nearly complete.
- Hybrid Garbage HT. This is the hybrid-vigour theory applied to humans. Problem is, to the best of my knowledge of the relevent science, ‘race’ in humans, unlike breeds of animals, is a social construct rather than a biological reality. Biologically, there is only one human race.
- Update: Brandon Berg has disputed the above characterisation of the state of scientific knowledge, and, having done a little research it now appears to me that there is no scientific consensuson this issue. I think it useful to distinguish between social race – which is a social construct – and anthropological race, which appears to be a valid, albeit disputed, scientific theory.
- You might be a white supremacist if. There’s a very interesting discussion in the comments.
- New: In this post on Alas, Barry gives two subtly different definitions of the term “rape culture”. The first is defensible, the second less so. Unfortunately it is his second definition which in practice is how feminists use the term. He compares the concept with a “culture of violence”, but that phrase’s typical usage is again different.
- New: In a thread on Alas, starting with this comment, there has been some discussion over the legitimacy of certain (re)definitions. Update (4 July): One side-effect of this redefinition, unintended and no doubt unwelcome to its advocates, is that Zahid Mubarak’s murderer, Robert Stewart cannot be considered to be a racist under that definition. While there are many adjectives that can be used to describe him, “privileged” is not one of them.
Recent posts and comments here on CD:
- Robert thinks the US is at war.
- In How Prejudiced are you Really? I’m having an interesting discussion with Dianne which I don’t want to let lapse.
- In this post I indicate that I may blog about the mythical feminist figure of 2% false rape accusations. and also debunk the rest of “Betty Fried(m)an’s” nonsense.
- I nagged Barry for further elaboration of his position on the subject of privilege, which he has provided, so I really ought to respond. I also want to address his countercharge, made earlier in that thread that I “discuss privilege – as if the fact that the ruling class of decision-makers is overwhelmingly male is a fact of no importance whatsoever (or at least not important enough for [me] to mention it…)”
- I certainly have something to say on the subject of patriotism. I just haven’t found the time to say it in that thread.
- New (4 July): I need to reply to these posts by Barry, Wookie, and to the discussion between Tuomas and Aegis.
Older Threads, here and on Alas, I want to revisit:
- This comment by Barry “require[d] a longer response than I [could] give [then].“. I don’t appear to have ever made that response. I also seem to recall him criticising me specifically in that thread for ignoring the needs of children. I can’t find the specific criticism, so perhaps I’ve misremembered, but I’d like to respond to it anyway at some point.
- I took Barry’s novel tool for analysing the stated vs. implied goals of the anti-choice lobby and applied it to the anti-C4M position. My analysis could be improved – I choose, for rhetorical effect to stay too close to Barry’s version of the implied goal, and I ignored what the third state goals of the anti-C4M lobby: protecting women’s health.
- Imagine that future technology made it possible to safely remove a foetus from a pregnant woman, and incubate it in an artifial womb. Women would then be able to walk away from a living foetus like men can now. Would they then be willing to give up abortion? Not without rights equivalent to C4M!.
Other things I want to blog about:
- Developing the idea I first articulated in this comment that legitimate safety advice and victim-blaming are often confused, I’d like to suggest some criteria to distinguish them.
- Are you a “partisan hack” if you don’t condemn objectionable behaviour, ideas, etc., among those you identify with? Barry seems to think so. Mythago apparently does not.
- In the penultimate substantive paragraph of my reply to Mythago, I suggested a criterion by which a person citing a member of a particular group as advocating a particular position could be regarded as cherry-picking. I’d like to develop this idea.
- Privilege denial and Privilege Reversal – Two more sexist framing devices feminists use to minimise and avoid addressing the issue of female privilege.
- I also want to make a general critique of the concept of privilege, independent of the specific framing devices used by feminists. Update: See this post.
- New: I’d also like to critique the concept of ‘rape culture’
- Here‘s one of my earliest comments on Alas. I wasn’t proud of it then and I’m not now. But what, apart from the factual error, was “so wrong in so many ways” about that specific remark?
- New (4 July): “If [FOO] affected men instead of women, something would be done about it” is a common feminist maxim. How true is it?
Feel free to use the comments to discuss any of the matters here, or to suggest other issues you’d like me to address.