Culture Warriors category archive
Blaming the Victim 0
John Kim, writing at Psychology Today Blogs, demonstrates that women are not to blame for male predation. Furthermore, he suggests Harvey Weinstein and his ilk are far from being monstrous exceptions to the rule, but, rather, are far too typical.
Here’s a snippet:
Aside:
It’s not the best-written piece, but I think he makes points worth considering. And, in a related piece, Laura Gianino tells a tale of trolls.
Trumpling Weinstein 0
At the Boston Review, Bonnie Honig sees both similarities and differences between Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein. The similarities she perceives are not surprising, but the differences are chilling.
Here’s a bit:
(snip)
. . . Trump has changed the rules of the game. Trump would never offer to get treatment to save his job. He would never ask for a second chance. If you are emailing your friends asking for support, if you say you will seek treatment, if you are hoping for another chance, you are already—in Trump’s grade school terms—a loser: reality’s victim, not its maker. The game is over.
Follow the link for the rest; it is quite worth your consideration.
One Thing Is Not Like the Other Thing 0
Randye Hoder points out similarities between the conduct towards women of Donald Trump and Harvey Weinstein because of Weinstein’s contributions to Democratic candidates and causes.
She then notes a crucial difference:
. . . there’s only one difference that matters: We didn’t make Harvey Weinstein president.
Click the link to follow her path the this conclusion.
Return of a Classic 0
In The Roanoke Times, Steve Frey despairs at the revival of a TV classic. A snippet:
In this modern scenario, Chief of Staff Kelly acts as Ward Cleaver, giving Donald fatherly advice, which the president seemingly ignores. Can’t you just see General Kelly standing by the fireplace advising, “Now Donald, you know that tweet was mean-spirited and will just get you into more trouble.” Wally and Beaver would listen and learn; Eddie Haskell Trump just keeps doing it. He can’t help himself. He seems to need A LOT of attention.
Aside:
For all who yearn for that portrayal of 1950s America, remember, Barbara Billingsley was a working mother.
School for Scamdal 0
Pap and Frank Schaeffer discuss the home school scam and its origins as a proxy for re-segregating schools.
A Picture Is Worth 0
Piggishness knows no party.
Dis Coarse Discourse 0
Jay Bookman discusses Donald Trump’s debasement of political debate. A nugget:
Nobody could have done what I’ve done for #PuertoRico with so little appreciation. So much work! pic.twitter.com/k2jAkIpfjI
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 8, 2017
In ordinary times, such a childish whine for attention would be considered extraordinary evidence of a leader’s incapacity and weakness, and cause for global concern. It is literally inconceivable coming from any other major political figure, perhaps in history, and in fact is inconceivable from anyone else beyond the age of 10.
In the era of Trump, it’s just a Sunday.
“Republican Family Values” . . . . 0
. . . is a con for the rubes.
Schism 0
Using the contrast between reactions to a kneeling Colin Kaepernick and a kneeling Tim Tebow as a starting point, Michael Frost explores what he suggests is an increasing division with Christianity.
Of course, there has never been a monolithic Christianity, not even during Medieval times. Early on the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches split, largely over political and cultural issues; for a short time, there were even two Popes, one in Rome and one in Avignon which was overtly political.
American Protestantism has long been a hodge-podge with a relatively staid main stream, but with fringes richly populated with con artists, fakers, and cultists. (“Place your hands on your television and prey pray with me.”)
Despite this checkered history, Frost discerns two primary and competing themes becoming dominant, at least in American Protestantism. I’m not sure that I buy his conclusions in toto, but I do think his piece is worth reading, as a growing number of religionists seem again to seek terrestrial political power and influence.
Here’s a bit:
One is reading the Epistles of Paul. The other is reading the Minor Prophets.
One is listening to Eric Metaxas and Franklin Graham. The other is listening to William Barber and John Perkins.
One is rallying at the March for Life. The other is getting arrested at Moral Monday protests.
Hoist on the Elmer Gantries 0
Leonard Pitts, Jr., marvels at the plethora of prophets proposing to profit from meteorlogical despoilation.
The Biblical “scribes and pharisees” had nothing on this lot.
Naked Lunch 0
The Miss Grundys of the world are never satisfied.
Afterthought:
By the by, if you have not read William S. Borroughs’s Naked Lunch, do so. Among other things, you will learn the etymology of the phrase “Steely Dan.”
The Pushers and the Pushees 0
In a lengthy article at The American Scholar, physician and journalist David Brown explores the genesis and state of the prescription opioid* problem in the United States. He traces the history of it in terms of evolving attitudes towards the treatment of pain and patients’ perception of pain in the medical profession and in society and ends with some recommendations.
I’m not sure how much I buy the recommendations, but, given the growing problem, I commend the article to your attention. Here’s a bit:
_______________
*Remember, when Not White people do it, it’s simply “drug addiction” and get them off the streets.
One Degree of Separation 0
In The Roanoke Times, a Liberty University graduate shares the letter she wrote when she returned her Bachelors diploma to Jerry Falwell, Jr., in protest of Liberty’s political agenda.
Aside:
Busy day today.
Techcasting 0
In a lengthy article at Psychology Today Blogs, Rosalind C. Barnett and Caryl Rivers consider whether science supports James Damore’s recent misogynist memo. You’ve probably heard of it; Google fired him for it and he’s now threatening to sue them for something or other his ittle bitty fees-fees got an owie cuz his male pwivilege didn’t give him the fwee pass he’s enjoyed up till now.
In the memo, he whines about political correctness, claiming that being polite (which is fundamentally what “political correctness” boils down to) is somehow a thing of “the left.”
(Remember, those who complain of political correctness wish the license to offend others without penalty.)
Opinions vary on his chances of winning any such suit.
Anyway, here’s a bit of Barnett’s and Rivers’s piece:
But are they? What are the real facts? We have been researching issues of gender and STEM (science, technology engineering and math) for more than 25 years. We can say flatly that there is no evidence that women’s biology makes them incapable of performing at the highest levels in any STEM fields.
They go on to skewer the so-called science that Damore cited in his screed.
Follow the link to take a look.
___________________
*Middle name: That’s Ross “Why does anyone give me money for being always wrong” Douthat, in case you were wondering which one.