Fascism and Basketball?

I love it when two of the random things I ponder in a given week can offer a different perspective of each other. A couple days ago I was listening to a How Stuff Works podcast on fascism while running. Yes, the word frequents the political vernacular all too often these days, but what does it actually mean?

If I can summarize the podcast well, fascism is the extreme right of the political spectrum, where every action is done for the good of the state. There is no real sense of individualism, the leaders form a totalitarian society and cultivate a country specific focus that often becomes synonymous with the leaders themselves. There's also usually some sort of survival of the fittest mentality with the fittest being one particular race or sect. And, of course, the need to engage in wars to conquer other, less fit, nations.

The surprising thing is, they require and get a lot of their countrymen to buy into it. This has always been one of the scariest things to me about historical fascists in general: how do the leaders convince the average citizen to hate their neighbor, to get so wrapped up in the movement that they don't question the leadership, and blindly cheer their side on in the war games currently being played?

Interestingly enough, we just started March Madness, the college basketball playoff games that keep many fans glued to the tv.  Popular enough to be discussed on the major news networks, these two weeks are just one example of fans dedicating their lives to watching their team(s) play, espousing the strengths of the players and mocking the weaknesses of their opponents.  Not to remove myself from this, I found it exhilarating to be apart of the excitement that is Cameron Indoor Stadium during Duke basketball, learning the cheers for our players and chants against our opponents, and badmouthing UNC at every chance I could (GTHCGTH anyone?).  I even commented to some of my high school friends about how nice it was to be somewhere with actual school pride.   Yet, there have been many instances where sports rivalries exploded into abusive rhetoric, raw anger, and even physical altercations.

Now, I'm no psychologist, but I can't help but think that the same sense of pride and competition we encourage blindly in sports is what fascists could tap into to support their rise to power.  I mean, think of how many ordinary Germans were convinced to aid the Nazis during WWII, not from personal vendettas with Jews and others, but out of a skewed sense of German pride.  What then should we make of it when we start trash-talking opponents we've never met?  It's a scary parallel.

I guess it comes down to the chicken or the egg conundrum.  Does athletic fanaticism slowly build our willingness to trample on arbitrary opponents?  Or, if we are wired to be overly proud and subjugate others, are sports just a healthy and much preferred outlet to express these emotions (than war, e.g.)? 

The right to bear arms

What exactly does the 2nd amendment guarantee? The debate around the 2nd amendment has come up a lot in my social circles lately, and I think I'm one of a few that has not come to a decision about it yet. Given that I have readers on both sides of this issue, let's dive in, but with a scientific/logical approach.

Apart from regulation of who has access/what checks are done/whether guns can be hidden (to which most sane people can usually generally agree to some basic guidelines), there seem to be two main areas of disagreement that arise about the 2nd amendment.

The first is on the wording of the 2nd amendment itself. What does it mean, and what was its original context? In other words, does the 2nd amendment guarantee us the right to bear personal weapons? For starters, let's look at the actual text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

From a purely grammatical standpoint, this amendment is messy and confusing. Does the right of the people to bear arms depend on being part of a well regulated militia? For you history buffs out there, in what context was this amendment given? And for you lawyers, do we even care about the original meaning, or just how it can be interpreted in the present day?

The second general area of disagreement is regardless of whether or not we should have the right to bear arms, does it benefit us as a society? In other words, do guns make us more safe? Here I've heard both sides shout arguments: access to guns either increases violent deaths, or acts as a deterrent to/weapon against crime. Does either side have scientific evidence to back up these claims? Has anyone done a study to show that inner city gangs have less death if they don't have access to guns, or whether they just revert to knifing each other? Or has anyone studied whether families with guns have successfully deterred/impeded would be robbers?

In short, I'm looking for solid facts and logical philosophical arguments about these 2 areas to back up some of the ardent positions a lot of you take on this issue. Do I have any takers?

Gender Roles and Religion, part III

It's been a while since I wrote the first two parts to this discussion, part I being a general overview of gender differences in religion, and part II focusing on how we see G-d. I figured it was time to expand a little on the rationale behind "separate but equal", as I myself struggle to form an opinion on the matter.

Now, most of my readers know by now that I'm an ardent feminist. Growing up I was thankfully taught that I could do anything I set my mind to. Judaically, it manifest itself as wearing a kippah and tallis to services (the former practice I only took up during undergrad). Yet why is this important to me? Do I get something additionally spiritual out of it, or is this simply a reflection of "if he can do it why can't I?" On the other hand, I will always wear a skirt on Shabbos, because for me, it's a time to celebrate being female. As my recent convos with the new Rabbi and Rebbitzin examined, is there something different between the sexes in their sense and practice of spirituality and religion?

The most convincing example of this was the first time I met the Rabbi, who's a big kabbalah guy and often offers classes on Jewish mysticism. His rationale for the different obligations of men and women included a description of women being inherently more spiritual, and thus men needing additional religious obligations. This notion was reinforced by looking around the room at the gender ratio (in this case, about 20 women and 3 men), which is apparently the case in a number of the classes that he leads. Is this a reflection of actual gender differences, or just a freak coincidence?

Within traditional Judaism, there are religious tasks ascribed solely to females: lighting shabbos candles, making challah, Rosh Chodesh (new month) celebrations, that can be particularly meaningful. If I want to keep observing these traditions as a female, isn't it a bit hypocritical to deny men their own roles? As a side note, this contradiction is reflected in a number of non-orthodox synagogues, where the women's club plans events solely for women and the men's club plans events anyone can participate in. Likewise, while some women read torah, few men light candles. It seems to me that we need to choose one: separate but equal, or equal and equal.

Yet I still have difficulty with the concept of different obligations, for the differences between the genders are not discrete, rather a continuum. There are men who have a strong caring and "maternal" instincts towards family and friends. There are females who want nothing to do with raising a family or caretaking. Let alone any in the LGBT community.

Do any of my readers have strong opinions on the matter?

As an update (since the initial draft was written in December), for the past couple of weeks I declined to wear a kippah at services as an experiment. While no one else seemed to notice, I couldn't shake the feeling of nakedness without my head covered. Guess at least to me there is something spiritual about it.