#unequal representation

[tomorrowusa]

Texas gives us a peek at what the US would be like under a Trump dictatorship. Check out the authoritarian Texas Republican platform.

The Texas Republican Party approved its new platform at its annual convention last week. It reflects the hard-right stances of its members, with reiterations of Texas’s “right to secede,” demands for bans on quarantines during future pandemics, calls to investigate “unidentified aerial phenomena,” and more. Tucked in between these more outlandish provisions is an ominous one that would effectively end representative democracy in Texas—and keep the state firmly in GOP hands even as it becomes increasingly diverse and urban. The platform calls for the establishment of what can best be described as an electoral college of sorts for Texas statewide races. “The State Legislature shall cause to be enacted a State Constitutional Amendment to add the additional criteria for election to a statewide office to include the majority vote of the counties with each individual county being assigned one vote allocated to the popular majority vote winner of each individual county,” the new plank declared.

The Texas state electoral college would essentially give Loving County (population: 64) equal representation with Houston's Harris County (population: 4,780,913).

It is hard to imagine that such a system as the Texas GOP has proposed would comply with the one-person, one-vote principle, to put it lightly. Texas has 254 counties, some of which are extremely sparsely populated. Loving County, which is on the state’s western border with New Mexico, counted only 64 residents during the 2020 census, making it the least populous county in the United States. Eight Texas counties are home to fewer than 1,000 people, and an additional 86 counties each have fewer than 10,000 inhabitants.

I'm sure Justice Alito and Justice Thomas wouldn't stand in the way of such a warped and undemocratic system.

In a decision last month on a racial-gerrymandering case from South Carolina, Thomas once again called for those precedents to be overturned. He argued that the Constitution gave the federal courts no role to countermand how states draw their political divisions, even if they do so to weaken or eliminate Black electoral power. Thomas even expressed doubt about the validity of the high court’s efforts to enforce Brown v. Board of Education in the face of widespread resistance to desegregation from Southern states.

Republicans are making no secret about their opposition to democracy in America; they are downright blatant about it. They love Russia which is run by a dictator chosen in sham elections with economic power in the hands of billionaire oligarchs. Outside the largest cities, Russians live in poverty with a quarter of the rural population still using outhouses. That is what Trump really means by making America "great".

The national election is five months away. There's plenty of time to avoid a Russia with a Texas accent type of government. But you need to make a commitment to be more politically active in real life, contribute more to counter the tens of billions raised by Trump, and to light a fire under political slackers you know personally. Like illness, politics almost never gets better without proper care.

[bixels]

I'm not explaining why re-imagining characters as POC is not the same as white-washing, here of all places should fucking understand.

[womensjudgesday]

Women in Justice/for Justice.

High-level event “Women in Justice/for Justice”

On the occasion of the International Day, UNODC organized a special high-level event to celebrate women and gender champions in the judiciary and law enforcement. At the event, UNODC launched its new initiative, “Women in Justice/for Justice”, to promote gender balance and gender responsiveness across the spectrum of justice. The initiative will encompass

calls to action to:

Advance women’s representation and leadership in the justice sector to promote integrity and gender-responsive criminal justice;

Improve the existing knowledge base to support responses; and

Celebrate “Women in Justice/for Justice” leaders, through an awareness-raising campaign which will be continued throughout 2022.

The ongoing work of the Global Judicial Integrity Network

Gender-related judicial integrity issues, including unequal gender representation, have been among the priority areas for the Network’s efforts since its launch in 2018. Among other work, the Network has organized numerous conferences, sessions or webinars on the topic, developed a dedicated issue paper, and published opinion pieces, podcasts and other relevant resources. You can access all these resources and learn more here.

[creatingblackcharacters]

My 2 Cents

So, one of the follow up questions I asked was

"are you willing to recognize that you have a willing tolerance for antiblackness? That there is a certain amount that you are okay with allowing before thinking it's worth speaking up?"

My goal in asking this question is not to cause you shame (though shame is not inherently a bad thing).

No, the goal is for you to practice active honesty with yourself! Be willing to accept the decisions You made!

You cannot confront- and therefore address- your own racism if you aren't willing to admit to when you're doing and allowing it. Ibram X Kendi's How To Be An Antiracist touches on this topic, of how racism and anti racism are a series of choices, not identities! Here's an article discussing it:

"No one is born racist or antiracist; these result from the choices we make. Being antiracist results from a conscious decision to make frequent, consistent, equitable choices daily. These choices require ongoing self-awareness and self-reflection as we move through life. In the absence of making antiracist choices, we (un)consciously uphold aspects of white supremacy, white-dominant culture, and unequal institutions and society. Being racist or antiracist is not about who you are; it is about what you do."

My personal fan example (and you knew this was coming 🤣) is Hades. I recognized that Patroclus' design is a white man in all but his ashy dark brown skin. It was a racist design, meant to be "representation", and I thoroughly disdain it. It wasn't enough to stop me from buying the game and enjoying it. I made a choice, to settle for mediocre representation so that I could enjoy a character I like! I still spoke up about racist and colorist fan designs, hoping that at least fans may be more receptive to not replicating racism (but that's otros veinte pesos 😬).

I'd naively hoped that maybe they'd do better the second time; maybe their actions were from ignorance! Maybe they'd learn! A *snicker* sage old man once said:

"fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Jokes on Dubya aside, I knew that I was already discontent with the designs in the first game, but I allowed it for my own enjoyment. I acknowledge that. But I had to be honest with myself the second time: if the lack of effort in the dark-skinned character design bothered me so much, and I spent all that time speaking out on it the first time... what do I look like then going to spend money on the sequel game doing it again? Do I really stand for what I said I stand for? Can I ask others to stand for what I stand for, if I don't really stand for it?

That time, I said "no". I decided I'd reached how much I was willing to put up with. I had to accept the consequences of speaking on that choice, including risking being rejected by a creative space I really wanted to be a part of. It is what it is. And it's one of many choices I'll actively make for the rest of my life. Comfort v The Right Thing.

Anyway, these are the sorts of conversations you'll have to have with yourself. Coming to terms with your choices along the journey will better help you identify just how much you're willing to sit on, and whether you want to make a difference about that. You might recognize when you're making a long streak of decisions that suggest you care less than you'd like to think; you might find out you've swallowed more than enough! But you gotta be honest about your own role in it!

[wanderingmind867]

Why couldn't Octavian have been a member of the seven? For that matter, why seven? Seven is an odd number. Completely unequal. There were 4 Greeks (Percy, Annabeth, Piper, Leo) and 3 Romans (Jason, Hazel, Frank). That's outright unfair. It should've been eight, and the eighth should have been Octavian. Octavian was a roman with a deep-seated fear of the Greeks. Forcing him to work with them would have been very good for him, and it could've been used to show that even people who're afraid of the unknown can overcome prejudice with enough time and effort.

I stand by this. Eight is a better number then Seven. Eight is nice and round. Seven is unfair, since it allows for no balancing of the scale. Four Greeks and three Romans means the Romans got screwed over. If I was a Roman camper, I'd probably be upset that my camp was getting less representation. I insist that it's unfair, and that Octavian should've been their eighth travelling partner. Or if not him, at least someone from Camp Jupiter!

[viadescioism]

The Black Karate Federation (BKF)

The Black Karate Federation (BKF) emerged as a response to the events surrounding a pivotal tournament held in 1969, which featured a match between two prominent martial artists, Joe Lewis and Sijo Muhammad, who was then known as Steve Sanders. The establishment of the BKF was motivated by a desire to address issues of unequal opportunity and representation within the tournament circuit, particularly for African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities.

The BKF aimed to level the playing field by providing a platform that offered equal opportunities for martial artists from underrepresented backgrounds to showcase their skills and compete on a fair and inclusive basis. In doing so, it sought to break down the barriers and biases that had historically hindered the progress of minority practitioners in the martial arts community.

One of the significant contributions of the BKF was its commitment to fostering the growth and development of young people through martial arts. Recognizing the transformative power of martial arts training, the organization offered karate lessons to young individuals who may not have had the financial means to afford such opportunities. This initiative not only provided access to valuable self-defense skills but also promoted discipline, self-confidence, and personal growth among the youth, particularly in underserved communities.

"Our mission is to create a greater sense of awareness of both physical and mental health, to assist individuals, including at risk youth, in reaching their potential and expanding their social consciousness by establishing goals, building confidence and developing a strong self concept."

[evidence-based-activism]

My mother keeps saying men are better suited for mathematics, numbers and coding because of their brains and supposed inclinations to be logical. She took a coding class and claimed that the men just understood it better, and were better at it.

I told her, women were the first ones to dominate coding in general, but she still believes the male brain is just better for practical use. She's a nurse by the way... I'd thought she'd know better than the believe the myth sex based brains.

How can I prove to her that she's false?

Hi Anon! I'm sorry your mother believes this! Maybe you can show her this post to help her understand the evidence!

---

Mathematics Performance

First, some studies that show women and men/girls and boys have similar math performance/aptitude:

This international study [1] examined boys and girls performance on standardized math exams around the world. They found that "gender equity and other sociocultural factors ... are the primary determinants of mathematics performance," which indicates that there is no inherent/biological difference in math performance just artifacts of an unequal culture.

This 2008 analysis of representative USA data [2], found "effect sizes for gender differences, representing the testing of over 7 million students in state assessments, are uniformly <0.10, representing trivial differences." Further over half of the individual effect sizes actually indicated better performance for girls. That being said, the weighted mean was consistent with no gender differences. In addition they completed a sub-analysis of items that targeted "cognitive complexity or depth of knowledge", as some suggest that boy's higher performance on these types of problems would explain their over-representation in STEM. However, this study found that "even for difficult items requiring substantial depth of knowledge, gender differences were still quite small."

This meta-analysis [3] of "242 studies published between 1990 and 2007, representing the testing of 1,286,350 people" found "no gender difference" in mathematics performance. They also performed a second analysis of data from large data sets based on probability sampling of U.S. adolescents over the past 20 years" and found that no gender differences on average; in addition the effect sizes again indicated girls performed better on some assessments.

This international meta-analysis [4] "representing 493,495 students ...across 69 nations" found "all of the mean effect sizes in mathematics achievement were very small" indicating that boys and girls performed similarly on the mathematics exams. Interestingly, despite the similarity, "boys reported more positive math attitudes and affect."

This review [5] found "research on cognitive development in human infants, preschool children, and students ... provides evidence that mathematical and scientific reasoning develop from a set of biologically based cognitive capacities that males and females share. These capacities lead men and women to develop equal talent for mathematics and science."

All of this indicates that there are no inherent gender differences in mathematics performance between the sexes. There may appear to be a difference, but this is a result of sociocultural factors and/or slight natural sample variation.

---

Stereotype Threat

In addition to the above, I want link to a past post where I address stereotype threat. I've copied the relevant portion below, but please see the link for sources:

As suggested by @mycodyke, an important factor here is the stereotype threat. This refers to how "behavior can be a consequence of priming effects, ... when a stereotype becomes activated, stereotype-consistent behavior may follow automatically from that activation" [21]. The study she linked [22] goes into this, finding that men performed the same in a cognitive task regardless of priming condition, whereas women performed worse only when primed with female condition. This replicated an earlier study [23] that found "no sex differences were observed" when the task instructions didn't emphasize sex-stereotypes. Other similar studies: -- This study [24] found "sex difference was reliably elicited and eliminated by controlling or manipulating participants’ confidence" -- This meta-analysis [25] suggested that "male superiority on spatial ability tasks ... is related to the implementation of time limits". -- This study [26] also suggested this, finding that "the magnitude of gender differences was linearly related to the amount of time available for test completion". All of this indicates that sex differences on this task (and likely in other similar situations) are the result of individual expectations about their performance. This is also commonly brought up for self-fulfilling prophecies; that is, if someone believes they will succeed/fail they are more likely to succeed/fail. And this has real-world consequences. For example, in this study [27], "in a simulated job interview, [participants] … were confronted with either sexist … or non-sexist … behavior … [and] results indicated that female participants in the sexist condition performed significantly worse on the mathematical test than female participants in the control condition … suggest[ing] an influence of psychological and interpersonal processes on seemingly objective test outcomes."

These studies were on a different "male typical" cognitive task, but the same principles underlying these results apply to tests of mathematical performance.

In short, the belief that men are naturally better/women naturally worse on a particular task can actually lower women's performance on the task. Eliminating or reducing this perception results in higher female performance.

For specific studies on this with reference to mathematical performance, see:

This study [6] found that "[math] test performance of women in a stereotype-nullifying presentation ... was raised significantly to surpass that of the men in the course" specifically for "the most highly qualified and persistent women [and men] in [upper level] college mathematics." (And as a note, they also find that when "test-takers were given the test under normal test instructions, women and men performed equally.")

This experimental study [7] that found women's performance on a math test, but not men's performance, was reduced by the stereotype threat condition (where they were told their sex is expected to perform worse) both within and between sexes.

Taken together, these results suggest that the current cultural expectation that men are naturally better – and women naturally worse – at math is actually harming women's performance.

---

Coding Skills

In addition to all of that, I've also discussed how there little to no evidence of sex differences in the human brain.

There's a lot less research on sex differences in computer coding proficiency, but a few include:

This study [8] that found that while "males have significantly more previous exposure to computer programming ... females do equally as well or better in programming comprehension."

This study [9] on programming lessons for primary school children found "no gender differences in coding ability".

This experimental study [10] also found no gender differences in "accuracy and efficiency of codes".

This interesting code review [11] found that "while there is gendered variation in programming style, there is no evidence of gender difference in code quality" [emphasis mine].

The above studies on gender similarities in math/spatial reasoning all also support gender similarities in coding considering they are often considered to underlie programming skill.

You are also correct about women being the original programmers! You can see these sources [12, 13] for an introduction to the history here.

---

Conclusion

In addition to all of that, I've also discussed how there little to no evidence of sex differences in the human brain.

All in all, there's no evidence that men are better suited for STEM fields than women. Instead, there's substantial evidence that there is no innate gender differences in mathematical ability, complex reasoning skills, spatial reasoning ability, and computer programming proficiency.

I hope this helps you convince your mom, Anon! If either of you have any questions, feel free to send them!

References under the cut:

Kane, J. M., & Mertz, J. E. (2012). Debunking myths about gender and mathematics performance. Notices of the AMS, 59(1), 10-21.

Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A. B., & Williams, C. C. (2008). Gender similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321(5888), 494-495.

Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., Petersen, J. L., & Linn, M. C. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 136(6), 1123.

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 136(1), 103.

Spelke, E. S. (2005). Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics and science?: a critical review. American psychologist, 60(9), 950.

Good, C., Aronson, J., & Harder, J. A. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Stereotype threat and women's achievement in high-level math courses. Journal of applied developmental psychology, 29(1), 17-28.

Johnson, H. J., Barnard-Brak, L., Saxon, T. F., & Johnson, M. K. (2012). An experimental study of the effects of stereotype threat and stereotype lift on men and women's performance in mathematics. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(2), 137-149.

Du, J., & Wimmer, H. (2019). Hour of Code: A study of gender differences in computing. Information Systems Education Journal, 17(4), 91.

Price, C. B., & Price-Mohr, R. (2023). Exploring gender differences in primary school computer programming classes: A study in an English state-funded urban school. Education 3-13, 51(2), 306-319.

Akinola, S. O. (2015). Computer programming skill and gender difference: An empirical study. American journal of scientific and industrial research, 7(1), 1-9.

Brooke, S. (2024). Programmed differently? Testing for gender differences in Python programming style and quality on GitHub. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 29(1), zmad049.

Little, B. (2021, February 9). When computer coding was a “woman’s” job. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/news/coding-used-to-be-a-womans-job-so-it-was-paid-less-and-undervalued

Thompson, Clive. “The Secret History of Women in Coding.” The New York Times, 13 Feb. 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/13/magazine/women-coding-computer-programming.html.

[odinsblog]

In “The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America,” Carol Anderson argues that the Second Amendment is not about guns – it’s about anti-Blackness. She says it “was designed and has consistently been constructed to keep African-Americans powerless and vulnerable.”

Anderson cites legislative debates from the Founding Fathers and a range of historical records to make some bold points. She says some early lawmakers who supported the Second Amendment were more worried about armed Blacks than British redcoats. She says that even after the Civil War ended, many Southern states banned Black citizens from owning weapons.

And that famous line about a “well-regulated militia?” Well, that was inserted primarily to deal with potential slave revolts – not to repel a foreign army, she says.

“The crafting of the Constitution was of primary concern for folks like James Madison because the Articles of Confederation were not working. And when they went to the Constitutional Convention, the Southern delegates made it really clear that they weren’t going to sign off on any kind of Constitution to strengthen the United States of America unless they could get the clear extension on the Atlantic slave trade, the Three-Fifths Clause so they could get more representation than they were due in Congress, and the Fugitive Slave Clause. Those were the bribes. That was the sign-off for the South to sign off on the Constitution.

But then as Virginia is looking at this Constitution and sees the federal control of the militia, this is when Patrick Henry and George Mason really started leading the charge. And that charge was about either scuttling the Constitution or getting a Bill of Rights to curtail the power of the central government and protecting the militia. Protecting the militia means that they are protecting slavery.

One of the things that many previous historians have not linked up was the role of the militia in putting down slave revolts, in buttressing slave patrols and keeping enslaved Black people, and free Blacks, under the boot of White supremacy.

The emphasis on the Second Amendment has been crafted as a well-regulated militia in terms of (opposing) a tyrannical government or stopping a foreign invasion, and the individual right to bear arms. That’s the way it’s been cast in the legal debates. That’s driven our historical debates. We’ve got a weird bifurcation in the scholarship between the history of slavery and the history of the Second Amendment. What I’m doing is saying these things are all happening at the same time. Let’s see what’s really going on.”

(continue reading)

[xhxhxhx]

One of the things that's kept me from writing has been an anxiety about correctness or completeness. I've been trying to stave that off, but it still eats at me.

In that spirit, I started writing this piece. It was meant to be what I know about the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

But because the Equal Protection Clause itself has no apparent antecedents in the Constitution and laws of the United States, I wound up writing something else. An introduction.

I.

The Constitution of the United States has two Due Process Clauses, but only one Equal Protection Clause.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment sits with the Privileges and Immunities and Due Process Clauses at the end of one long sentence:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Equal Protection Clause joins the start of that sentence with its last clause, after that last semicolon, "No state shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

II.

Unlike its companion clauses, the Equal Protection Clause was new to the Constitution.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause had its antecedent in the Privileges or Immunities Clause of Article IV, and the Due Process Clause had its antecedent in the Fifth Amendment.

But the original Constitution doesn't have an Equal Protection Clause. The stem "equal" does appear in the original Constitution, but always an aid to addition and division.

The original Constitution guaranteed equality between classes of Senators, "divided as equally as may be," and forbid amendments that would deprive the States of their "equal Suffrage in the Senate." Equality between persons was harder to find.

Neither the original Constitution nor the Bill of Rights speaks to civil or political equality, nor expressly. The principle might be in there somewhere, but it's not in the text.

III.

Justice Douglas did find an implicit principle of political equality in the Constitution and laws of the United States. In 1963, he authored the phrase that became the standard for political equality in the United States, "one person, one vote." Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381 (1963).

At the time, no State met that standard. In Georgia and Florida, a fourth or an eighth of the State's population could control the upper house. In Nevada, a twelfth could. Nat'l Mun. League, Compendium on Legislative Apportionment at iv (1962).

But the problem wasn't limited to the South or to State upper houses. In New York's State Assembly, where the average population of a district was 111,882, the smallest had a population of 14,974, and the largest 190,343. Id.

In California, where Chief Justice Earl Warren had been Attorney General, Governor, and Senator before making himself useful enough to Eisenhower to win his nomination as Chief Justice of the United States, the situation was worse than anywhere but Nevada.

In California's Senate, where the average district population was 392,930, the smallest had a population of 14,294, and the largest 6,038,771. In the Golden State, districts representing 10.7% of the State's population were a majority of the State Senate. Id.

In California, Warren had opposed attempts to reapportion the State Senate. "I believe we should keep it," Governor Warren had said. He approved of unequal representation in the State Senate because it was "in keeping with the federal system of representation."

Under the "one person, one vote" standard, first the Supreme Court, then the inferior courts of the United States, systematically compelled State legislatures to reestablish themselves on the basis of strict population equality between districts.

IV.

After announcing his retirement, Chief Justice Warren held a press conference during the Court's summer recess, on a day that happened to be the day after the Fourth of July. N.Y. Times, July 6, 1968, at 1.

But now, July 5, 1968, when asked what he thought the most important cases of his term were, Chief Justice Warren didn't say Brown, or Gideon, or Miranda. The most important case of his term, he said, was Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).

Baker was where the Court first held that legislative apportionment was a judicial question, not a political one. It was where the Court first held that unequal legislative apportionment was, or could be, a denial of the equal protection of the laws.

"For a long, long time we have swept under the rug a number of problems that are basic to American life," Chief Justice Warren told the reporters. "They have piled up. There must be great adjustments of some kind." Baker was Warren's great adjustment.

Baker was the start of the reapportionment revolution, a revolution that came to be known by the name Justice Douglas used in another reapportionment case: "one person, one vote." Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381 (1963).

For Warren, "one person, one vote" was nearly a matter of faith. "I believe so devoutly," he wrote in his memoirs, that "ours is a government of all the people, by all the people, and for all the people." Memoirs at 308.

But Warren was more comfortable grounding the right in "the essence of a democratic society," Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964), than in particular provisions of the Constitution, much less the original Constitution.

Even Justice Douglas didn't trace "one person, one vote" to the original Constitution.

V.

Justice Douglas may be best known as the author of that unhappy metaphor about the Constitution's "penumbras and emanations." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965).

But for Justice Douglas, the "conception of political equality" that ratified the principle of "one person, one vote" ran, for the first century of the republic, outside the Constitution:

The conception of political equality from the Declaration of Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth, Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing—one person, one vote.

Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 381 (1963).

Neither the Declaration of Independence, which recognized that “All men are created equal,” nor Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, which recalled and restated it, made law. Not domestic law, at least. The essence of democracy spoke one way; the constitutional text, for nearly a century, spoke another.

For the first century of the republic, the "conception of political equality" was hard to find in the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Even for Douglas, who could find rights in penumbras and emanations, its roots lay elsewhere. It came from America's political tradition, not its fundamental law.

[whencyclopedia]

Hipponax & Misogyny in Ancient Greece

It has always been recognized that women in the ancient world were considered only a little higher in value than the man's cattle or plow and, sometimes, not even accorded that kind of respect. Examples of misogynistic attitudes toward women can be seen in certain works from Mesopotamia or Egypt but, in these cultures, women were generally respected and even enjoyed a degree of equal rights. In the work of the Greek poet Hipponax of Ephesus, however, misogyny reaches heights unequaled in any other writing.

Hipponax (c. 540 BCE) is known as a satirist with a “malicious disposition” but, if his work on women is supposed to be in any way funny, it misses the mark completely. It is little wonder that he was exiled from his hometown of Ephesus and finally died in poverty.

D. Brendan Nagle and Stanley M. Burnstein in their work The Ancient World: Readings in Social and Cultural History, include in their section, Husbands, Wives and Slaves: The Domestic Foundations of the Polis, Hipponax's piece, “If Only We Could Reproduce Without Woman…!” which clearly demonstrates the misogynistic attitude of the time and makes women seem unappreciated and worthless. There is not a single point in the piece where women are talked about positively. As stated, women were typically only seen valuable for their ability to reproduce and to maintain a household, but a modern reader cannot fully realize how poorly women were regarded until experiencing this piece of writing.

The poet Hipponax wrote, “Two days are sweetest for a woman, the day a man marries her and the day he carries her out dead”. This statement is extremely degrading, especially because these ideas and beliefs were kept for so long, even if they were not believed to the extent that Hipponax represents. Even to this day some men still do not believe in the equality between males and females.

Some modern readers may believe that this idea of the unimportance of women in ancient Greece is not that degrading because, in today's society, most people do not think this way. Such readers also may actually believe that the way women are described in the text is a good representation of the characteristics of women. The stereotypes of women may be correct to some extent, but they are extravagantly cruel and, further, anyone could think of plenty male attributes and relate them coarsely to the characteristics of animals representing men.

A break down of the female characteristics that are represented in the text is quite interesting. First the pig is used to represent women. Hipponax is describing a woman as a slob that has no respect for herself and her self-appearance. Then comes the fox, which is described as being sly and unpredictable and then, most offensive, is the dog, also known as the bitch. The dog is supposed to reproduce over and over again and is annoying because she is in everyone's business and always wants to be heard. Nobody can shut the woman up whether she is treated nicely or beaten.

Hipponax's depiction of woman as the sea is the most accurate representation of women, because a woman's moods and temperaments do tend to change quite frequently. This is the only representation that a modern reader might actually agree with. Yet this reasonable pause is brief and the list continues on describing a woman as the ass, weasel, horse, and the ape until reaching the conclusion that “Zeus made this the greatest pain of all: Woman”. The nicest `type' of woman this poet can manage is the bee but cannot help but say, “Good luck in finding such a woman” as he goes on to describe a woman who is only a “loving wife beside her loving man” who will bear “illustrious and handsome children”. For most people, however, the bee is synonymous with a sting.

However, thanks to the grim contrivances of Zeus, women are here to stay by man's side forever, no matter what, and Hipponax and those like him will simply have to deal with that.

Continue reading...

[soullessjack]

ive been thinking a lot about how adrien was supposed to be disabled during his concept development and how much of a missed opportunity the whole thing was, like. on one hand I honestly respect the writers for backing out of a topic they thought they wouldn’t be able to handle well; not to say the representation in miraculous is anything great but it shows they do care about it at the very least, which is more than most media can say. I also know this was a decision that came way before the show even started, but I feel like Tomoe Tsurugi is proof that they can write disabled characters and do it in a way that’s fairly decent, so i feel like they could still incorporate it in now since their prior concern is pretty much ruled out (they’re never gonna do this).

and narrative wise I think it would add very much to the entire Agreste family arc, like idk. you could have his disability be a result of the peacock’s damage, or damage to his Amok. have it be part of the reason why Gabriel is so controlling and isolating (ie; viewing his son as frail and made of glass now) and distant/abusive (viewing his son as now “less than perfect,” at least in terms of what he’d envisioned for a perfect child, and blaming Emilie’s sickness/death on it). Adrien’s modeling career is entirely just inspiration-sensationalism with a “hopeful ray of sunshine” public persona. it can even be important to cat noir, too! it’s still an escape from his home life and career, but it’s also a chance for adrien to show that he’s not as fragile as gabriel thinks. It’s his own way of having independence and autonomy and for once being someone that isn’t constantly pitied or made to pretend he’s a docile ray of sunshine constantly.

I’m also deeply autistic enough to say it could match with him being the holder of destruction; half of his life is centered around preserving him and, again, treating him like he’s made of glass. so why not give him the power to literally crack and shatter that glass? poetic cinema and all that. additionally it adds to both why he’s so unserious with his role as a superhero and why he values his partnership with ladybug so highly—he’s indulging in this new freedom while also recognizing that the partnership it comes with is about the only one where he’s genuinely treated as an equal and trusted to take his own part in something. that’s not to say I think all of his friends would instantly change personalities and baby him (especially not Nino) but let me tell you, even as someone who’s not physically disabled, the distinct feeling of being othered or unequal is there no matter how much support you have.

everybody knows this already but there’s just so much potential in everything that the writers don’t do reagghhhhhghhhh

[dailyanarchistposts]

Why are anarchists against hierarchy?

Why exactly is hierarchy bad?

dot

To the extent that hierarchy is bad (there is a question of semantics here—see below), it’s because it encourages (or forces) people into situations where they feel (or are) not responsible for their own lives and actions. The military is full of extreme examples of people doing things that ruin the rest of their lives because they were ordered to (not just by their commanding officer, but by an entire social system that a) tells them they should be ordered, and b) forces them into situations like the military to be able to survive).

Some people don’t put the issue in hierarchy, but in domination, and argue that some amount of hierarchy is not a problem, as long as it’s not institutionalized... Like, it’s ok if people pay more attention to you when regarding something that you’re known to be good at. The problem, for example, comes when you get to start making people do things.

I think the valid critique that people bring to this ques- tion is that of relationship, and the idea that we are all in some kind of hierarchical relationship all the time (a la Foucault), that power flows between people all the time, and that to resist hierarchy is to resist relationships... So the issue becomes one of context and degree, rather than simply a binary one.

law

If I may, I would alter your question to read: Why is hierarchy considered to be detrimental to the positive principles of anarchism like mutual aid, direct action, and voluntary cooperation? With a simple understanding of what those principles are and what they look like, the question almost answers itself.

I would wholeheartedly agree with dot that it’s a question of the institutionalization of hierarchy rather than hierarchy itself that is the problem, so a better way of discussing this issue is to call the problem domination—or if you’re feeling philosophical, call it Herrschaft, because all the really heavy philosophical shit sounds especially heavy in German.

alc

I imagine a “hierarchy” in a simplified sense as a pyramid where each individual exists as a block in the structure: the closer your block’s position to the top, the less pressure you feel upon yourself and the more pressure you put on others. The pressure symbolizes authority. So this highly unequal distribution of force predictably breeds institutionalized privilege, envy, and competition for dominance, at bare minimum because of a want to escape the pressure. It seems like the privilege and envy,

Now, beyond just intentions, and the way that power corrupts, we can emphasize the consequences of structures of hierarchical control, how they create incentives toward exploitation and obstacles toward accountability, and how such systems by definition entail finite positions of superior privilege and inferior classes held in subordination. Power hierarchies mean that those most allowed to change the status quo have the most investment in preserving it—their power, prestige, profit, etc. rely upon the disempowered not taking back their usurped initiative. Oftentimes even the mildest managerialism snowballs away from accountability and toward authoritarianism through “emergency” justifications that never roll back.

Systems that allow for and emphasize the role of hierarchical power have totalitarian tendencies. They have pyramidal structures, stacked ranks, centralized power, vertical organization. Their officials give commands supported by threats. This creates a delicate stability through a shared fear of repression.

In this spirit, their decision-making tends to utilize massive restriction and coercion, representation, assimilation, and manipulation by force or by fraud.

They develop impersonal bureaucracy, standardiza-tion, and conformity. But other and contrary types of relations and organizing exist, such as collaborative self-determination between peers, the kind that anarchists propose.

Power hierarchies undermine communication. Hag-bard’s Law shows that in a truly pyramidal structure, where authority figures create order through threats, subordinates tend to tell their superiors merely what hierarchy the superiors want to hear. This filtering multiplies to the degree of verticality, by each level of mediation in that structure. Those at the top therefore lose connection from the reality below them. The (mis)information the authorities receive appeals to their confirmation bias (the things they want to hear), resulting in misguided intentions cloaked in truth, shielded by mistaken confidence, and armed with monopoly, allowing for no opposition. And so, because of the one-way decision-making and the filtered awareness, if those at the top of the pyramid actually made a deliberate attempt to represent the subordinates, they would tend toward a misrepresentation made invisible to themselves.

If people possess the critical thinking and character assessment skills to recognize in an authority the ways to lead competent, benevolent lives, why must we have to delegate this capacity outside of ourselves? Why do we need them to run our lives if we can tell how our lives should be run? And however will the disempowered find freedom, if in each instance where authoritarians act on behalf of the disempowered, to shape or shield or crush them, the will of the disempowered continually atrophies from lack of exercise? How else will the disempowered find freedom, if not in seizing the direction of their own lives, the very act that the authoritarians deny them? Stratification of power only exacerbates the predicament. We alone experience the peculiar circumstances of our situation. We alone bear the history of our aspirations and sorrows, our passions and eccentricities, our capacities and limitations.

Our lived experience grants us more qualification at determining our path than any speculating manager could ever dream of. Further empowered by collaboration with one’s peers, people can experience authentic freedom, and not the sad farce of begging those in power for mercy.

People may voluntarily seek for themselves a leader to guide them, but when they deny others the ability to live autonomously, it results in nothing but tyranny, no matter how many smily faces the tyranny hides behind. Those of us who by conscience refuse systems of hierarchical power will not voluntarily choose hierarchy to opt-in and cannot opt-out without severe punishment. Those in power promise us the world but by design they must keep our lives out of our own hands, and regardless of whether or not they make decisions I would endorse—which they don’t—I find the method irreconcilable with my conscience and my aspirations. And that is the inequality and the abusiveness of the “power” I refer to, that is the mechanics intrinsic to hierarchal order.

[user-kanra]

Penacony as a Theme Park

I just finished watching Jenny Nicholson's video on the Star Wars Hotel (Galactic Starcruiser, if we're being fancy) and the last section put into words a lot of concerns I've had about the current state of theme parks and the entertainment industry in general. It's a very worthwhile watch, and it's honestly got me thinking about Penacony, so I'm going to ramble for a bit.

I don't know if I'm off-base thinking this, but I've always perceived the Golden Hour to be very theme park-esque. If memory serves, it's where we first meet Clockie, who's voice actor did what I consider an amazing Mickey Mouse impression. It's design is very much giving theme park trying to look like a city (main street in magic kingdom, I'm even reminded of Hollywood Studios just a tad), and the statue of Clockie reminds me of Walt with Mickey in Magic Kingdom.

Also, that little bit of Robin POV felt like a character actor moving around the parks LMAO

(Spoilers under the cut)

I'm going to make a bit of a leap here and call Mikhail/Misha Walt Disney. I promise, I love that kid, I only want to use Walt as an example.

Misha, as the remnants of the Watchmaker, played a heavy role in designing the dreamscape. From what I can tell, the dreamscape was only ever really intended to be an attraction, a place of entertainment you're not meant to live in.

So Misha built the dreamscape. Mikhail is dead, Misha didn't even know he was Mikhail, so all we have left are people acting in the Watchmaker's name. This, to me, resembles Disney in the aftermath of Walt's death. EPCOT was named not for what it stood for, but because it was the name of one of Walt's projects that never got to see its creation.

I think Penacony is actually a great representation of what's going wrong with entertainment right now. Sunday's anger make sense in the context of the unequal, poor treatment a lot of guests get nowadays. This place should be magic for everyone. It should be everyone's most memorable moment. But for one reason or another that's not happening. (Why do people barf in the dreamscape? Evil trash cans and performers? I'd also be pissed if I was promised a luxury experience and got that instead).

But part of what was so important was that Misha's story ended in that chair. He can rest now. Penacony is no longer tied to the Watchmaker.

That's, you know, both good and bad. It leaves room for greed and bastardizing what the dreamscape was supposed to be. If you know anything about the current state of theme parks, you know that the quality's gone down and the prices have gone up. Jenny Nicholson said it the best when she said that Disney is looking for a way to charge the most and do the least. They're "cashing in on the good will they've built," they can get away with this stuff.

But it's also important. Walt wasn't always right (actually, he was usually wrong), and staying in the past (or a dream) is never a good idea in the first place. At some point, you have to face the core of the problem. For Disney, it's that capitalistic greed is the entirety of their current business model. For Penacony, it's that everyone being equal in a dream isn't the same as everyone being equal in real life. You need to look critically at Disney, just as the dreamscape shouldn't be your entire life.

Of course, there's more important lenses to look at Penacony with, but theme parks strike a special cord with me, so I thought I'd try to reason it out here. Hope this made sense!

[iridescentmirrorsgenshin]

Kaveh and Alhaitham, Sumeru Bulletin Board (over)Analysis: Part 1

(This is a reworked excerpt taken from my Haikaveh essay! If you're interested you can check it out here or as a pdf <3)

‘Lambad’s Tavern Notice’ posted on the Mahamata Bulletin Board tells of Alhaitham asking Lambad whether his order of wine had been processed. Lambad responds by saying that it had already been picked up by a “blond” person who claimed to be Alhaitham’s roommate, and that Alhaitham should already know this since the two frequented the tavern together “the other day”. This notice serves as foreshadowing of Kaveh’s status as Alhaitham’s housemate, although it is interesting what it implies in regard to their relationship.

Besides the information conveyed that Kaveh and Alhaitham drink together at the tavern (establishing a mutual regard for the other), the motif of communication, primarily miscommunication, can be observed here.

Kaveh and Alhaitham are operating on different levels of communication, and thus, they have missed each other. Rather than Kaveh informing Alhaitham upfront about him picking up the order, Alhaitham has to pursue other means of gaining this information, where Kaveh’s meaning is to be inferred, rather than directly supplied. Regarding their typical manner of dialogue, this aligns with their problem regarding miscommunication, in which true intent of words is concealed, and therefore unheard by the other, and misconstrued into a different perceived meaning (this is further discussed here).

The two are on unequal footing, displayed here by the concealment of truth, resulting in miscommunication, or a chance of successful communication.

The Bulletin Board messages serve as a representation of the standing of Alhaitham and Kaveh’s relationship and the discord between them which needs to be surmounted. This is exhibited within this bulletin board in the two ‘missing’ each other, in regard to Kaveh picking up the wine from Lambard’s Tavern without Alhaitham’s knowledge, and Alhaitham only finding out afterwards. The two fail to intersect in their communication; they are never fully understood in their meaning.

[truthdogg]

In the US, any sort of nationwide community-building is derided as communism and considered dangerous by the right. It’s better to have the people distrust one another. Communal efforts, if not organized by private funds, are all called “socialism” or “communism” and therefore demonized.

There’s a strong reason for this. The power of democratic government lies with the people. Power belonging to the people is traditionally opposed by keeping it in the hands of corporations, wealthy individuals, and churches. “Small government” lobbyists are almost always corporate power or wealth advocates, white supremacists, or zealots. (“Almost always,” because I’m sure there are others, but the rare exception proves the rule.)

When a populace becomes majority-minority, as much of ours has before and inevitably will again, that tactic of libertarian anti-government control always shifts to combine with fascistic control. At that point, it’s no longer good enough to undermine building a national community, it becomes imperative to limit participation in government and use the government to undermine democracy itself.

This has happened in the US before. In fact it was the rule all across the South (and not only the South) for about a century after the Civil War. We’re seeing the resurgence of a new fascism today because the old fascist structures of Jim Crow are finally breaking down, and the dominant power seeks to replace them.

A fair and just representative government will always be the rival of non-governmental power. The conservative solution to that rival is two-pronged. First, weaken the representative government: strip away regulations, end public support systems, privatize services. Second, within those hobbled institutions, limit the voter representation within it: use of targeted voter ID, the filibuster, gerrymandering, disenfranchisement, unequal representation and other tools all come into play here. Domestic terrorism has been a popular tactic (both privately and officially) for at least 150 years and has been making a strong comeback for decades. Outright theft of office is also a distinct possibility, as the nation has historically seen locally since its founding, as Tennessee showed us last week, and as trump attempted on January 6th.

Another century of fascist rules are being solidified today. This isn’t hyperbole. It has been done before and it is very likely to continue. Perhaps people are pretending it’s normal, because it’s not new, but we have to keep raising the alarm before it’s too late to push back.

[sfenvs3000w25]

Blog #3: Reframing Nature: Addressing Privilege and Promoting Inclusive Environmental Engagement

Privilege is a term that can be defined as different advantages that are unearned and are connected to the economic, social, and cultural identities of individuals. Privilege shapes the ways in which people connect with, interpret, and access nature. People from higher socioeconomic lives and backgrounds generally have more potential and opportunity to truly experience different natural spaces, which ultimately frames them as either places of healing or leisure for these individuals to visit and connect with during busy or stressful times in their lives, which we have all experienced at one time or another. Conversely, some marginalized may experience exclusion for a variety of different reasons and influencing factors. Some of these may include but are not limited to different geographical locations, financial reasons, systemic barriers, or even risk. Additionally, some individuals may view nature as a site of labour rather than a place to explore, heal, refresh, and escape the real world. These different views and feelings surrounding nature could create rather divergent narratives about nature and the natural world itself, which could stem from the unfair and unequal distribution of natural resources or even opportunities that nature provides. 

Enjoying nature this summer at my cottage.

Cultural privilege can heavily influence which perspectives are prioritized within environmental narratives, as well as those that aren’t. Colonial viewpoints are often reflections of dominant interpretations, revealing nature as an “undisturbed, immaculate wilderness”, all the while erasing Indigenous practices, histories, and culture. Terms that are used to define wilderness including “pristine” reaffirm the previously mentioned bias, which ultimately ignores the interconnected bonds and engagements that several marginalized networks and populations may have with the environment itself. Ultimately, this positioning ignores and overlooks the environmental contributions given by underrepresented groups. 

Connecting as an inclusive community!

Resolving and addressing privilege in nature interpretation urges the increase and amplification of voices from different marginalized groups. This would allow for the inclusion and integration of more diverse cultural perspectives from both groups and individuals, ultimately minimizing the barriers in place limiting the accessibility of nature. If we critically examine the ways in which privilege shapes different understandings surrounding nature including both collective and individual, we would be capable of cultivating inclusive, welcoming environmental engagement for all. This commitment would require a variety of different key principles and actions, including structural change, self-reflection, and a push for equal representation. This would eventually ensure that nature itself is being valued through an inclusive, broader, welcoming, and just lens for all. A piece from this week's readings that truly resonated with me was in regard to the fact that many individuals born into more privileged circumstances "are not taught to recognize their privileges" (Gallavan, 2005). This is true, and upon reflection of my own personal situation, I feel that I am at fault for this. Luckily, my family has never struggled financially, so I have never truly known what it was like to not have all the essentials for school, work, life in general, etc. This unit truly impacted me and I will forever be grateful and thankful for all things both big and small. I will begin recognizing my privileges and helping the less fortunate wherever I can.