Every morning I receive my daily news digest of what's happening in the middle east, as seen from multiple news sources. I learned a long time ago that certain news sources have an inherently strong bias in what and how they chose to cover news related to Israel, and one should take this into account when reading it. Take for instance, the coverage of the massacre at the religious school in Israel and the daily firing of rockets into Israel proper (note, territory not disputed in any international forum except by those who deny Israel's right to exist). Every day I'd read the coverage that focused on the "disproportionate" Israeli response, and wanted to throw my hands up in the air and accept that the majority of western media will always have an anti-Israel bias. And then I stumbled on this article, which in addition to some suggestions about the power of an individual, does a great job at summarizing some of the facts of Israeli history most commonly distorted by the media and anti-Israel propagandists. It also gives a list of sources and suggestions for further reading.
To highlight one of the author's main points, we can do something as individuals. The most effective measure we have against propaganda is to educate ourselves and those around us of the truth. One can argue the nuances of what is an appropriate response, where the boundaries should lie, what the path to peace should be for hours, but these discussions need to start with a firm historical foundation of fact. So check out the article. It's a step in the right direction.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Gender Differences
A friend forwarded me the following story (we scream, we swoon). The article is written by a woman about gender differences, with particular criticism for the female sex.
Yes, I'll admit, as a gender we are sometimes ridiculously superficial and dumb. Obama isn't the first presidential candidate to attract female voters based on his swoon-worthy appearance (e.g. JFK), yet even with the beginnings of female contenders, can you ever see males voting for president based on her sex appeal? Yes, some of us have a ridiculous obsession with looks, spend thousands of dollars on plastic surgery, botox, etc just to avoid the effects of aging. And yes, as a whole we seem to support intellectually void literature way more than necessary.
However, the author fails to acknowledge the stereotypical male equivalents of such silly shananigans. Take, for instance, the general male obsession with sports, willingness to spend entire days watching other people play on tv, bestowing personal worth based on athletic talent on strangers and family alike, and spending thousands of dollars on high-definition televisions to capture the action better. Another example to view is the willingness of males (more so than females) to resort to violence to solve our differences. And don't get me started on the amount of time and money males spend on hard-core porn (as opposed to the romance novel soft-core equivalents).
The author also choses to cite studies that rely on standardized testing. For those who are unaware, in the scientific community standardized means to test "intelligence" are highly controversial, often biased toward higher socio-economic status and the male gender. For a personal anecdote of gender differences in spatial perception, last year we had a question on a robotics exam that required us to analyze a sketch of a 3 dimensional robot. All 5 females in the class saw the robot differently than our 15 male counterparts and answered the questions accordingly, and didn't realize why our answers were all off until we discussed the drawing with the teacher. On subsequent exams, he used another method to show 3 dimensions, and the females went back to scoring above average.
What I'm saying is this: regardless of gender, people as a whole are not always the brightest. We obsess over stupid things. We focus on the superficial and popular rather than the deep and meaningful. Yes, there are population gender differences, but why should we seek to define any group of people based on the mean? And if one is going to base her arguments on scientific studies, perhaps she should investigate the methods used and what inherent bias they might have. At the very least, perhaps one should use her criticisms to encourage change in her gender's habits, instead of sitting back and accepting inferiority.
Yes, I'll admit, as a gender we are sometimes ridiculously superficial and dumb. Obama isn't the first presidential candidate to attract female voters based on his swoon-worthy appearance (e.g. JFK), yet even with the beginnings of female contenders, can you ever see males voting for president based on her sex appeal? Yes, some of us have a ridiculous obsession with looks, spend thousands of dollars on plastic surgery, botox, etc just to avoid the effects of aging. And yes, as a whole we seem to support intellectually void literature way more than necessary.
However, the author fails to acknowledge the stereotypical male equivalents of such silly shananigans. Take, for instance, the general male obsession with sports, willingness to spend entire days watching other people play on tv, bestowing personal worth based on athletic talent on strangers and family alike, and spending thousands of dollars on high-definition televisions to capture the action better. Another example to view is the willingness of males (more so than females) to resort to violence to solve our differences. And don't get me started on the amount of time and money males spend on hard-core porn (as opposed to the romance novel soft-core equivalents).
The author also choses to cite studies that rely on standardized testing. For those who are unaware, in the scientific community standardized means to test "intelligence" are highly controversial, often biased toward higher socio-economic status and the male gender. For a personal anecdote of gender differences in spatial perception, last year we had a question on a robotics exam that required us to analyze a sketch of a 3 dimensional robot. All 5 females in the class saw the robot differently than our 15 male counterparts and answered the questions accordingly, and didn't realize why our answers were all off until we discussed the drawing with the teacher. On subsequent exams, he used another method to show 3 dimensions, and the females went back to scoring above average.
What I'm saying is this: regardless of gender, people as a whole are not always the brightest. We obsess over stupid things. We focus on the superficial and popular rather than the deep and meaningful. Yes, there are population gender differences, but why should we seek to define any group of people based on the mean? And if one is going to base her arguments on scientific studies, perhaps she should investigate the methods used and what inherent bias they might have. At the very least, perhaps one should use her criticisms to encourage change in her gender's habits, instead of sitting back and accepting inferiority.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Dating feedback
It's been a while since I last posted, and late on a Saturday night, however, I figured I'd write again about dating. Both with guys in my life and in my friends', I've become rather interested in what makes a person have dating balls.
Now, mind you in today's gender inclusive environment, the responsibility does not fall solely on the male for pursuing and making his intentions known. Yet for the life of me, I have not been able to understand what makes someone put him/herself on the line and obviously pursue someone else. In the ideal world, knowing someone is interested in you would make you more likely to put yourself out there, but this is not always true.
Case in point: for those who don't know, I'm rather interested in the topics of bowel/bladder/sexual function from a scientific perspective, and am pretty open to talking about it. Yet at a party last week, one such attendee decided to broach the topic by telling me personal stories of his sexual encounters. I am all for discussing the physiological mechanisms of mating and procreation (and their dysfunction), yet I don't really want to hear about how enjoyable orgasm is to you and details of your sexual conquests. And for some odd reason this particular attendee did not pick up any of the hints dropped that this was not a good way to hit on me. Which makes me think, he's in his late 20s, so he's got to have had many interactions with the opposite gender. Who on earth helped support his notion that this was a good way to pick up girls? Or how has he gone through this much of his life and not realized it?
As my friend Randy said, the difference between a sweetheart and a creep is whether his advances are welcome or not. Complicated to decipher, perhaps, but a relationship's potential for success depends on a person's ability to truly understand the other, and correctly perceiving one's response to your actions can play a pivotal role.
On the other hand, what makes some so willing to entirely put themselves out there for a potential boyfriend/girlfriend? I mean, at these early stages do they really know they'll be successful ahead of time? Or are those that are more readily pursuant just more self-confident in general and are willing to risk more to gain more?
I guess what I'm asking is two-fold: 1) what makes some potential datees be more ballsy than others, and 2) which is worse- someone you liked lacking the decisiveness/courage to pursue you, or someone you don't like continuing to pursue even though you've tried your best to discourage them?
Now, mind you in today's gender inclusive environment, the responsibility does not fall solely on the male for pursuing and making his intentions known. Yet for the life of me, I have not been able to understand what makes someone put him/herself on the line and obviously pursue someone else. In the ideal world, knowing someone is interested in you would make you more likely to put yourself out there, but this is not always true.
Case in point: for those who don't know, I'm rather interested in the topics of bowel/bladder/sexual function from a scientific perspective, and am pretty open to talking about it. Yet at a party last week, one such attendee decided to broach the topic by telling me personal stories of his sexual encounters. I am all for discussing the physiological mechanisms of mating and procreation (and their dysfunction), yet I don't really want to hear about how enjoyable orgasm is to you and details of your sexual conquests. And for some odd reason this particular attendee did not pick up any of the hints dropped that this was not a good way to hit on me. Which makes me think, he's in his late 20s, so he's got to have had many interactions with the opposite gender. Who on earth helped support his notion that this was a good way to pick up girls? Or how has he gone through this much of his life and not realized it?
As my friend Randy said, the difference between a sweetheart and a creep is whether his advances are welcome or not. Complicated to decipher, perhaps, but a relationship's potential for success depends on a person's ability to truly understand the other, and correctly perceiving one's response to your actions can play a pivotal role.
On the other hand, what makes some so willing to entirely put themselves out there for a potential boyfriend/girlfriend? I mean, at these early stages do they really know they'll be successful ahead of time? Or are those that are more readily pursuant just more self-confident in general and are willing to risk more to gain more?
I guess what I'm asking is two-fold: 1) what makes some potential datees be more ballsy than others, and 2) which is worse- someone you liked lacking the decisiveness/courage to pursue you, or someone you don't like continuing to pursue even though you've tried your best to discourage them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
