Life, Liberty & The Pursuit of Happiness

Rethinking Men

by Reena Kapoor
An excellent article Is there anything good about men? pointed out by my friend Stephen Hicks about why men and women are what they are. Original insights backed by some sound analysis -- although probably quite dissatisfying for gender warriors - thankfully.  The author's fear of the feminist penchant for attacking anyone who does not stick to the orthodoxy of why men are bad, bad, bad is evident from how many times he defensively says "...I am not saying this is good or bad...." 

Nonetheless a worthwhile read.

Racism - Not always black & white!

by Reena Kapoor

Apparently women of color are immune to allegations of racism.  Stupid me for not knowing this after having suffered through "diversity" training at some of the leading coprorations of this country.  I don't know about you but that does not make me feel warm & fuzzy about the choice of Sotomayor as nominee for the supreme court! I don't know how competent this Latina is but she sure scares me with her glib attitude and penchant for judicial activism, NOT to mention her racist remarks. Yes, read this:

Yet speaking at Berkeley's Law School in 2001, Sotomayor asserted that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would \[as judge\] more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." 

If you don't think that's racist, make her a white male in your mind and change the "Latina woman" to "White male" and vice-versa and see what you think.

Implants vs. Ideology

by Reena Kapoor

In this excellent article Second Thoughts on Breasts that I came upon in The American, Amity Shlaes talked about how the FDA reveresed the 14-year ban on silicone implants in 2006 after finding them both "safe and effective".  The media of course downplayed this news but, worse, the assumption was that nothing was lost so no need to look back on what happened. 

There was no apology for the ban which was based on fear mongering (fully supported by the FDA) and big company bashing - anything but science.  But the losses were real. And not just to women many of who were breast cancer survivors and could not avail of this technology, but there was also no compensation to shareholders for the lost equity and billions paid out in law suits and to the thousands of workers who had to be laid off work by Dow as a result of this. Why?

Interestingly, even scientists failed to look at the facts and let misplaced ideology color their viewpoint.  The executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine Marcia Angell was a key player in giving credence to David Kessler, commissioner of the FDA by publishing his article that laid out the case for the ban. When data began to emerge about the safety of the implants here is what she had to say in her astonishing 1996 manifesto Science on Trial:

Multiculturalism's Real Victims

by Reena Kapoor 

A shocking story in the New York Post last week by John P. Avlon about an "honor killing" in a suburb of Atlanta, Georgia where a Pakistani named Chaudhry Rashid strangled his 25-year-old daughter Sandeela Kanwal with a Bungee cord in her bedroom because she wanted to end her arranged marriage. The incident is shocking but what's really unconscionable is the lack of outrage and minimal coverage it is receiving. The American left's inane commitment to multiculturalism and its concomitant moral relativism has predictably resulted in a outrageous reluctance to pass judgment on another culture.  As Avlon correctly points out:

Political Correctness, Obama & all our 'isms'

by Reena Kapoor

The whole PC movement especially on college campuses has long been past the point where it could meet any standards of sanity.  In the WSJ today, Dorothy Rabinowitz' opinion article American Politics Aren't 'Post-Racial' describes more recent madness at Purdue University. A student (also an employee) was accused of "racial harrassment" and summarily warned of "serious consequences" for being found reading a book which, as it turns out, was a history book about a battle students waged against the KKK in the 1920s! 

Once again: Girls & Math?

by Reena Kapoor

An article Vital Statistics in the Economist about some very interesting new research study by Luigi Guiso of the European University Institute of Florence and his colleagues that suggests that culture can explain much of the disparity in average Math scores between girls and boys. Here is an excerpt:

The researchers compared a country's OECD 2003 maths and reading test results with various measures of social sexual equality. On average, girls' maths scores were lower than boys, but the gap was largest in countries with the least equality between the sexes, such as Turkey. It vanished in countries such as Norway and Sweden, where sexes are pretty much on a par. And the gap in reading scores increased, with girls doing even better in more equal societies.

I have not evaluated this study for its merits but here are my thoughts on the subject:

• This is interesting because of the never-ending debate on what causes lower average math scores in girls vs. boys. The genetic determinists (often, but not always, conservatives) maintain that it's all "nature" and that our brains are simply wired differently; on the other hand the culture-metaphysicians (usually the lefties & feminists) maintain it all "nurture" and that we've made girls poorer at math by telling them they can't do it. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.
• The US is fairly progressive on women's issues from a political /rights perspective but I am always struck by how much "sexism" actually exists in the popular culture. By sexism I do not necessarily mean an anti-women mentality, but instead an ultra-simplistic view of individuals as being defined by stereotypical male and female characteristics. In this regard, the feminists are as much to blame as the traditionalists.
• That is not to say that there are no differences between men and women; instead what gets lost are a few simple truths i) we do not know what causes gender-based differences - how much nature, how much nurture and how? ii) how much of these differences are hard wired and how much of it is "reversible" and finally iii) these differences are averages observed across populations and cannot be applied to individuals. This last point is often poorly implemented, resulting in much prejudice.
• Usually in making broad sweeping generalizations about either sex we do a real disservice to all individuals. So boys who are bashful, emotional and artistic have an equally hard time as girls who are math whizzes, sporty or aggressive (I think I got the stereotypes right :)).

I am looking forward to more and deeper research on this front. Let the truth prevail!

The fall guys

by Reena Kapoor

Brilliant little piece 'Nothing but Misogynists' in the WSJ about how Hillary, now on the verge of losing the democratic nomination, is complaining that she's lost because of sexism.  The analysis is clever in making two pertinent points -

1. Her finger-pointing actually accuses Democrat voters and her own party for being sexist; and if, as she claims, she's more likely to defeat McCain than Obama is, then it shows that Republicans are less sexist than Democrats.
2. How ridiculous her claims are in that ....a woman who holds degrees from Wellesley and Yale – who has earned millions in the private sector, won two terms in the U.S. Senate, and gathered many more votes than John Edwards, Bill Richardson and several other middle-aged white guys in their respective bids for the 2008 Democratic nomination – feels cheated because she's a woman.

I've always simply thought of Hillary as a scheming politician who's anything but a spokeswoman for feminist ideals (even my leftist friends agree with that assessment) and her recent utterings on this front simply confirm that.  Worth the quick read!

Hemp Lingerie, anyone?

by Reena Kapoor

My dear and funny friend Todd from Cincinnati (a city that boasts, I am told, the highest number of churches per capita) sent me this absolute must-read by brilliant Melanie Reid: A world of Hemp Lingerie? No thanks published in The Times.  She is funny and spot-on in terms of how environmentalism exhibits many traits of traditional religion and how by stalling progress and forcing us to go back in time it actually threatens women even more. 

She's chillingly astute when she says:  "What amuses me, wryly, is how this new religion is following in the path of all traditional ones in its impact on women. Climate change is indeed a feminist issue. Who will be the victims of the eco-smug; of this pious gospel of make-do-and-mend? Why, women - who will have to forgo their washing machines and their dish washers, carry supermarket shopping on the bus, and return to the horror of reuseable nappies...."  Of course the accompanying puritanism, holier-than-thou attitude, unquestioned belief in man's evil nature and acceptance of all teachings simply on blind faith are some of the salient characteristics of followers of this new religion.   

Living in the SF-Bay Area I meet these rabid and unquestioning believers everyday.  And they are the SAME people who were loudly praising the merits of the Soviet economy as late as the '80s. I guess the only good news is that reality eventually catches up.  Or am I too optimistic? Any ideas?