tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post5020898294987210063..comments2024-03-28T07:08:58.221-04:00Comments on Todd Seavey: Is Nature Morally Forbidden to Throw Us Curves?Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-59770824903367783722008-12-10T11:08:00.000-05:002008-12-10T11:08:00.000-05:00[...] 6. One Punk Under God featuring Jay Bakker: ...[...] 6. One Punk Under God featuring Jay Bakker: I was recently given a free DVD of this short documentary series, about the punk preacher son of disgraced televangelists Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, depicting his decision to move from Atlanta to Brooklyn, where he starts a more gay-friendly congregation. One of his Brooklyn parishioners, Benjamin Doray, actually gave it to me during a farewell bar gathering for California-bound Marcia Baczynski, who’s a big fan of item #8, coming up in a moment. One of the documentary’s most revealing moments, given the tension throughout between punk Jay and father Jim, is Jim Bakker admitting he always feared his father’s disapproval and then breaking down while speaking at Pete’s Candy Store (that’s right, the Jim Bakker has been on the same stage that has hosted spelling bee hostess Jen Dziura, not to mention Lefty Leibowitz’s Ramblin’ Kings country band — I always said there was something David Lynch-like about that slightly-claustrophobic, intensely-red space that would work well on camera). As a man working on a book called Conservatism for Punks, I was morally obligated to watch this documentary, and I’m glad I did. [...]Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-16086170697940656962008-12-08T11:12:00.000-05:002008-12-08T11:12:00.000-05:00Unfortunately, the people there want a zillion bil...Unfortunately, the people there want a zillion billion<br><br>laws to change stuff, but there is still some substance<br><br>even there.<br><br>Gerard, if you eliminate the legal interventionist stuff,<br><br>there is a some discussion concerning which jobs<br><br>women choose, and links to organizations which<br><br>encourage “nontraditional” work. Having people look<br><br>beyond roles for more lucrative or more satisfying work<br><br>does have “efficiency of market” implications. In fact,<br><br>one book I have, “The Worldly Philosophers,” has an<br><br>introduction where cartels which stifled pricing changes<br><br>and innovations, traditional job-inheritance practices,<br><br>and bans and stigma on “usury” stifled the creation of<br><br>a labor market.<br><br>Another link I looked at was concerning breast<br><br>reduction. There was the health stuff, the accusation<br><br>by a friend that someone was “afraid to be a woman,”<br><br>and surprisingly no comment about whether it would<br><br>be OK for esthetic reasons. People need to sort out<br><br>all the “whole women” stuff.<br><br>Also, guys who object to women who object to sexual<br><br>depictions of women everywhere: this helps keep that<br><br>stuff in check. Guys need to think about other things,<br><br>too…<br><br>PS – Certain types of genital mutilation are already<br><br>traditional and legal in certain US subcultures. I would<br><br>not extend this, but can envisage a court case based<br><br>on “fairness,” even though, of course, it would only<br><br>result in extra children, this time femaie, being<br><br>affected.Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-38106024674678571752008-12-07T18:03:00.000-05:002008-12-07T18:03:00.000-05:00The funny thing is that comparable worth is probab...The funny thing is that comparable worth is probably the only major stupid idea that I don’t see being enacted through the next session of Congress, although I have no doubt that he’ll try to impose it through administrative fiat. <br><br>BTW, I think this blog entry validates your assumptions about feminist thought on this subject:<br><br><a href="http://www.feministing.com/archives/012444.html" rel="nofollow"> A Gendered Read On The Stimulus Package </a><br><br>I don’t know how often you peruse that website, but it’s pretty typical of the muddled, Gramscian-type thinking you encounter among third wave feminism.<br><br>If you check their archives you’ll find scads of posts demonizing Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and Dave Evans-and basically, the entire Duke lacrosse team-for a rape invented by a drug-addled, criminal hooker from Durham. Essentially, and I’m throwing out a wild guess here, because everyone on that Duke Lacrosse team was-with a sole exception-white.Gerardhttp://indolentmick.livejournal.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-68030826639293977702008-12-07T14:38:00.000-05:002008-12-07T14:38:00.000-05:00I concede context differs with time and place (I m...I concede context differs with time and place (I might be a feminist activist in Saudi Arabia, as I might seek out socialists as allies in Iran). Yet which now most threatens to cause legal coercion in the U.S., feminism or patriarchy? Does anyone think we are in serious danger of specifically anti-female laws being passed here (and no, I’m not counting abortion restrictions, lest we end up going down another complicated alley)?<br><br>Yet we now have a president-elect (already busy with big-spending public works ideas, as some libertarians who voted for him may have noticed) who, at least prior to the election, promised to have the government enforce male-female same-position pay equality. And the intellectual impetus for many such measures exists and is rooted, quite obviously, in the elite acceptance of feminist (perceived) grievances against market outcomes.<br><br>Saying (broadly, and ever mindful of the countless exceptions any issues this complex raise) that feminism is a threat to _present-day American_ liberty should be no more controversial than saying that, for example, environmentalism is — and, yes, I am familiar with the free-market environmental movement _and with how small it is_.Todd Seaveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08589187886030112999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-610803938756668468.post-5587881293483633222008-12-07T13:55:00.000-05:002008-12-07T13:55:00.000-05:00If all you were arguing was that feminism should c...If all you were arguing was that feminism should coexist with fallibilism/ skepticism/ non-dogmatic open-mindedness, and that sometimes it doesn’t, you’d be a lot closer to right. The part of you that would rather be right than be a provocateur keeps coming close to saying that. On the other hand, you seem to think that a few decades of feminism have somehow stifled thousands of years of acquired prejudice in favor of beliefs in essential sex differences and female inferiority, which prejudices were held without much sense of fallibilism and continue to be held in that way by people in vast numbers around the world. Your estimate of the relative importance of these dogmatisms seems dubious.Jacob T. Levyhttp://jacobtlevy.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com