Harebrained Schemes 8

Have you ever noticed a strange smell in your house? It's more common in the country than in the city. Smells like a dead animal but you can't locate it? Don't be surprised. You're not equipped to. Evolution may have improved your intellectual standing above the “lower” animals, but it has taken away much of your ability to locate and identify odors and their sources. Most of us don't eat roadkill or its variants, so why be able to identify and locate it?

Cats For Rent would solve this problem at a rate cheaper than an exterminator. No white jackets and fancy equipment. Just some hungry cats (they haven't been fed in days – it lowers costs and improves results) that are let loose in your residence. If they can't find the source quickly, no exterminator can. And in addition to cash for their owner, you've provided food for starving animals. It's all very green.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Who's around to hear what people will say at his funeral. OK. At a roast of an entertainment star people speak up while you're still alive, but they usually insult you for the laughs. Very nice, very friendly, and totally insincere.

What you really want to hear are compliments – whether deserved or not. That's insincere too, but you want to take it seriously, and you want the guests to do so as well. Some of what the speakers say will be true but most will be exaggerated. So what. It's the first time in your life (wrong word?) that you're shown the respect you think you deserve. But you never hear it. The words either don't get into that wood box, or you don't hear them for some other reason.

There's batting practice before a baseball game, rehearsals before a show opens, and even preplanning of a funeral. Why not include the rehearsal of a funeral service so the guest of honor will hear the accolades. He can even edit and add to them so no one will be unaware of the accomplishments he considers most important, but which would probably be omitted by those who don't know him a well as he does. Or are less impressed by the “accomplishment's” importance. And he can suggest “slaps” at those who offended him.

It would be a good money raiser for the funeral home and, with an unhealthy meal following, there may be some heart attacks that will up the earnings..

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's a spate of accusations of sexual abuse going around. They're usually blamed on men and attributed to DNA that lets testosterone run loose, and society's willingness to overlook the idea that “boys will be boys.”

Those are certainly contributing factors, but not the critical ones. Periodically we read about a female predator – usually a school teacher or someone in industry who heads a department or section. In those instances, testosterone isn't the issue – power is. Control. Women took advantage of men or boys who feared that their rejection of their superior (or squealing) would result in punishment, while acceptance of the “opportunity” would lead to advancement. As Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts.”

Which leads me to a simple solution, and a chance to kill two birds with one stone. (Actually two directly and others in passing.) The answer is to bar men from leadership positions in all fields until a clear pattern of sexual abuse by women is established. The “one stone” of which I wrote would, along the way, immediately shatter the “glass ceiling.” (Other likely results would be that there would be a change in the pattern of wage inequality – perhaps only the direction – and an alteration in birthrate statistics.) What the Hell. It's worth a try.

November 21, 2017

The Suspension Of Disbelief By The Public

Women Claim Plumber Fondled Them

Cheerleader Accuses Star Quarterback Of

Making Her Feel Uncomfortable

Drug Clerk Charged With Groping By 23 Women

Suppose those headlines appeared in the weekly editions of mid-west papers. Would the stories be covered by the major media?

Women Claim Senatorial Candidate Fondled Them When They Were Young

Intern Accuses President Of Bedding Her

Numerous Women Reveal Sexual Demands of Billionaire Producer

How about these from major east coast organs?

We're titillated by the fall of the mighty and not interested in the human faults of the poor. The truth of the accusations is irrelevant.

Why are charges like these leveled by so many so long after their occurrence? One possibility is that at the time of the incident they were fearful and intimidated. Their willing participation would not have been well received if others knew what happened. Another is that the facts are not as they claimed or that they were the initiators of the interaction which they describe inaccurately. Or maybe they never happened.

But that doesn't account for the frequency with which they are leveled, and the eagerness of those purported to be victims to talk about them. And there are times when the accusations come at politically sensitive times – like just before an election Is it significant additionally that charges are often labeled against those with deep pockets?

It's likely that much of what they claim is true. That, however, doesn't account for the flurry of accusations coming out now. (It should be noted that there are no convictions, only accusations, but the politicians and the media have already tried and convicted those accused and they have made clear to the public what their judgment should be.) There is no question that wrongdoers should be punished, but in most states (but not all), while there is no statute of limitations for rape and violent sex crimes, there is a limit for bringing charges against someone accused of a lesser offense and, decades past the time of commission of the alleged offense, there is no remaining evidence (if there ever was any) of the crime. It's “He said, she said,” and the accusation can only serve to embarrass the one accused – often during a political campaign – serve as the basis of monetary litigation whether justified or not, demonstrate the claimed victimhood and virtue of the accuser, or simply serve as a cry for attention.

In all likelihood men, and male DNA, have not changed in the past few million years or so. Men have always been the sexual aggressors (though sometimes women have consciously provoked that behavior – I'll deal with the more complete issue of the sexes in a future essay) and the question that arises is why, all of a sudden, there is a rash of complaints. It could be that societal norms and expectations have changed, or it could be a political tactic, but it has now become common, and fashionable, to claim sexual abuse by someone famous. And the pattern is to accept the accusation – with or without confirmatory evidence – and reject any denials.

Our society has become sympathetic to the cries of women. And, perhaps justifiably, sensitive to all their needs.

And the press and politicians are playing it for all it's worth.

November14, 2017

=

Yesterday was National Women's Equality Day. On August 26, 1920 the 19^th Amendment to the Constitution went into effect.

That having been said, however, the reality is that there's no such thing as equality. (I think I've said this before.) It's purely a philosophical construct. Just as there are no two identical snowflakes, there are no two identical people. We differ in many aspects – sex is certainly one of them, though not always the most noticed in modern society. (And certainly not “gender.”) The visible differences between people are often masked by clothing, or minimized by style.

But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Nor other differences. We differ in height, weight, strength, intelligence, abilities and talents, interests, and a host of other features that are apparent to ourselves and to those we meet.

There are hidden differences as well, however. You're probably unaware of your basophil count or your serum creatinine, unless they were just drawn and you looked at the laboratory report. You probably don't know (or care) how many times your heart has beaten in the last twenty-four hours, unless you're attached to some monitoring device that does the counting. The chances are good, however, that the numbers are not equal to those of the people you'll meet today. Or any other day. Even your identical twin.

For just as we differ in terms of our natures, we differ in our experiences. Even before we're born. So “identical twins” – at least as the term applies to matching DNA – may not be identical. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/science/06qna.html?_r=0) Even the DNA itself is subject to mutation, so differences may occur there as well. But the differences related to those we meet and befriend, the schools we attend, the programs we watch, and whatever else we see or hear, or otherwise experience, will also play a part in who we are and in what we manifest to others.

And while differences in religion may not be obvious unless we make them so, they're likely to affect the way we act (ditto our ethnicity) – even if we reject the philosophy behind them. (The tension, however, between a secular society and a religious tradition can be a source of contention for us all. “Blue Laws” and other secular concessions to religious laws may limit us – especially if our religion doesn't accept the laws – while secular norms may affect the religion itself. E.g. must the Catholic Church accept the idea of women as priests since an egalitarian society would like it that way?) That's not to say that everyone considers all religions equal, or that atheists and believers would accept each other – especially their ideas.

But none of that really deals with the question of what constitutes equality. We're certainly not all the same. In fact no two of us are the same. In terms of our characteristics and our capabilities we're all different. We're not equal. And there's no concept of equality in the animal world from which, according to Darwin, we're all descended. Not between dinosaurs and dogs, and not even between two lions. There's a hierarchy in every society: a pecking order. And, whether or not it corresponds to our societal fashions and political correctness, the pecking order is related to sex and to strength. Nature doesn't know from equality. It's a purely human concept.

It's unlikely that anyone takes the idea of equality seriously. At least not in the sense that suggests that we all have equal capabilities. We may not want to admit it, but we're aware of it. We've even developed language that acknowledges the reality. We speak about “special” education rather than admit aloud the fact that some are not as intelligent as others. And we idolize sports figures who have greater physical abilities than we. We know that different people have different talents from ours, and that's not a bad thing. We're all different.

Our founders were surely aware of those differences. Yet they spoke of equality anyway, even though they clearly recognized that no two of us were the same. They certainly disagreed with each other regarding many things. In all likelihood they understood the concept of equality, however, in political terms rather than in respect to the characteristics obvious to those with whom we interact. Their goal was to provide us all with the opportunity to benefit equally from society – politically, economically, and socially. And their view of who might be a recipient of the rights they assigned may not correspond with our own, but their vision of the concept of equality does, though over the generations there has been “tweaking” of the list of those who should benefit from the political equality they envisioned. Hence the nineteenth amendment and others that have extended rights to other Americans.

We fool ourselves, however, when we speak of equality. We long for sameness rather than diversity, as we simultaneously praise diversity. But it would be a very boring world if we were all the same. Political equality is reasonable, however Nature (or G-d for those who believe) has given us different assignments. It's only when we superimpose human “norms” on those that we get into trouble. Perhaps we should all vote (at least those defined as “we” at any particular time), but it's only because we aren't all equal that we don't all think and vote the same way.

Inequality is what makes life interesting.

Equal Justice

I heard on the radio about a woman who stabbed a man (her husband?) because he rejected her sexual advances. She was arrested, but released on $10,000 bail.

It intrigued me, and I looked on Google to see if there were any similar cases. Here is some of what was listed:

Cops: Woman, 26, Wielded Hatchet After Her Demands For Sex Were Repeatedly Rebuffed – It's dated June 28, 2016, and contains the following “... Free on $5500 bond, she is scheduled for a July 26 court hearing.”

Woman, 56, is arrested after she 'threatened a 25-year-old with a knife and a wooden cane because he rejected her sexual advances' Her bail was $3,500

Woman Threatens Husband with a Knife to Perform Oral Sex – She was sentenced to 90 days in jail after pleading guilty.

The details of these cases are not of interest to me. And while I have no reason to question the reports, I don't have independent verification of the facts. On the other hand, I suspect that there are other similar circumstances that are not listed in the online files. It seems likely to me that the incidence is under-reported. I doubt that many men would complain to authorities that they were forced by a woman to have sex. And I doesn't seem probable that they would do so with sufficient evidence for the woman to be arrested and charged.

As I mentioned, I'm not especially interested in what happened between the man and the woman. It's none of my business. But the criminal justice system is in the public realm and I pay taxes to support it (even if the offenses were in other jurisdictions), so I am more involved in that aspect of the situations. And I'm interested in the equity of the law and its penalties.

I remember, as well, the Bobbitt case. Although it took place in 1993, the story is hard to forget – a woman amputating her husband's penis because she “snapped.” His provocations were responsible for her state of mind. And because of the temporary insanity, she was found not guilty, requiring only psychiatric evaluation. While her husband's misdeeds may have – indeed, they almost certainly did – caused her to take action, her conduct, and that of the jury that excused it, raise questions. As does the penalty.

If a man, using a knife or a hatchet (or any other “persuader”), attempted to force his wife or any other woman to perform a sexual act, my sense is that he would not have been treated as leniently by the legal system. I am sure that his bail – if any were permitted at all – would have been considerably higher. And any incarceration would have been significantly longer. No mention is made of sexual predator status, but a man would surely have been entered in the sexual offender registry for life. It isn't clear from the articles that the women involved in these incidents suffered the same fate. Not even Lurena Bobbitt, who wasn't responsible for what she did (though if her husband had performed a mastectomy on her the result may have been different).

I have no intention of defending the men who have abused women, however they have done it. With or without weapons other than their fists. Abusive actions call for penalties. Severe penalties. And such actions are usually those of men.

Usually, but not always.

Do we treat women more leniently? It seems that way. Is it society's chivalry? Do we assume women can do no wrong? Sexual abuse of students used to be considered a problem of male teachers, until we learned otherwise. Men and women have differences, but many of them can be characterized by numbers – by quantity rather than quality. Women may be less likely to engage in abusive sexual conduct, and their sexual drives may differ in degree from men's, but we deceive ourselves if we deny their existence; we delude ourselves when we view women as if they were (what we believed were) the innocent damsels of the Middle Ages of whom we read. They were, and they are, people, and just as responsible for their actions as men.

It is fashionable, and has become so in part at the urging of women, to view men as insensitive boors responsible for all the ills we suffer. We have accepted that construct and assume that whatever has transpired, if there is any blame to be assigned, it is to the man. We have trained men to feel guilty all the time. Admittedly there are many who don't buy in, but at present it is “correct” to blame the man and let the woman off the hook. Women are in the majority but we treat them as a minority, and it is society's bias that the minority is being oppressed by the rest of us. So we grant them as many of the benefits of the law as we can, or create new laws to do so, while shielding them from its responsibilities. The scales of justice which, in the past, were weighted against them, now provide them with favor. We talk about equality, but we don't practice it.

We need to grow up. Society needs to mature. The time must come when we not only say that we are all equal, but we act that way. Perhaps some day we'll have, to paraphrase John Adams, a government of [equitable] laws, not of [women and] men. That doesn't seem to be the case currently.





September 22, 2016

Do You Really Think So?

I don't speak for men.

I don't speak to them, so how could I possibly speak for them?

I don't speak to women either. In fact, I try very hard not to speak to anyone. Of course I exchange the usual pleasantries. How can I avoid them? But I don't take them seriously. Nor does anyone else. They're void of content and they're void of truth. When was the last someone answered you honestly when you asked how he and his (or she and her) family were? And I avoid parties like the plague.ⁱ No. Scratch the simile. They are the plague. They're places where people dissimulate or get drunk and brag. Sort of like bars but more genteel.

Anyway, though, when I occasionally speak to my wife about all the things women do wrongⁱⁱ I usually tell her how men think or what they do. It's a cover for expressing my own feelings, since it's hard to talk about myself openly. But that's what I'll do here. So if you catch me talking about what men think you should know that the only male mind to which I have access is my own, but I have trouble phrasing things that way. (Be aware, though, that some of the problems I face are not unique. As much as I try to avoid the thoughts of others, I know enough about men to realize that many of the views I have are shared by lots of them.)

Men are transparent. When they ask a question it's usually because they want to know what the answer is. Looking for an ulterior motive or a hidden agenda rather than answering the question is not likely to be productive, though it will be irritating. A “yes-no” question is best answered with a “yes” or “no,” not an endless explanation or analysis. Yet when a man asks a woman a question,ⁱⁱⁱ it's likely that rather than an answer he'll get an interrogation; why he asked the question takes precedence over giving an answer. Makes sense. Who knows what was going through his mind? It might be prudent to change the answer depending on what he's thinking and what his real question is. He's hiding that.^iv And it's the obligation of a woman to know what a man is thinking.

Another potential area of conflict is the dispute about who is right and who is wrong. But that's easily solved. The man is always wrong – especially if he's right. “If a man says something in a forest and no woman hears … 'He's still wrong.'” I'm always wrong. That's the assumption, and I'm used to it. Her default is to disagree with me even before I've had a chance to express myself. That's not unreasonable since I've always admitted being wrong when we disagree, whether I believe it or not. It's better than arguing and easier to recover from. An apology is better than a fight.

A woman assumes a man always knows what she's talking about, even when she's changed the subject without saying so. If it's clear to her, it should be clear to him. And she assumes that if he didn't hear what she said, he wasn't listening. Sometimes she “remembers” what she or the man said and he doesn't recall it.^v There is sometimes reason to suspect that her “memory” is a wish rather than a fact, but he'll never win the argument if the man says so. It's better to apologize. She won't.

Women are far more curious than men. They want to know everything that's going on. And they feel obliged to offer an opinion on everything. And a recommendation. Whether or not it's solicited. For example: A few months ago I went to a (female) dermatologist about a minor problem. Noting a hole in my undershirt, she told me that I should buy new underwear.^vi My (male) internist has never suggested that although he's had many more opportunities.

I've also noticed that my wife interrupts me a lot. Mostly I'm used to it and keep myself from interrupting her interruption. I'm bothered, but I can deal with it. There are times, however, when I really get annoyed – like when I start asking a question and she interrupts after a few words, providing a long answer before I finish my inquiry. The answer sometimes has nothing to do with the question I wanted to ask. She's convinced, though, that she knows what I'm thinking and she can respond immediately to the stupid question she anticipates I'm going to ask. She can read my mind just as she is certain that I can read hers and know what she is talking about, even if it doesn't relate to anything that has come before. But I need space. Intellectual and emotional as well as physical. My thoughts are my thoughts, unless I want to reveal them.

I may love her but the reality is that I don't understand my wife. Sometimes. But that's OK. At times she doesn't understand me either. I'm sure that a list of particulars like this^vii will be answered by a bill from her that's far longer. After all, men have many more flaws than women, and the misperceptions on my list simply reflect my inability to think clearly, or remember all of the ignorant statements I've made, and foolish things I've done.

It has nothing to do with men's inability to understand women^viii – though that is certainly the case and can muddy the waters tremendously. It's more that neither of us can read minds, and much of the misunderstandings arise from a presumed understanding of what we're thinking or what immediately preceded the statement or question that was not clear.

But that shouldn't be a surprise. Men and women are different. Vive la différence. Their bodies and their minds are different. Their abilities and their interests are different. They'll never understand each other, however much they may profit by their interactions.^ix Live with it.

I do. I said it^x and I'm glad.

Next episode:  "Nota Bene 2" – More grist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I        And organic food.

ii        In my opinion.

iii       Enough artifice. When I ask a question is what I really mean.

iv       It's interesting that women seek conversation and socialization from men, but discourage it be analyzing whatever the man says. Why open your mouth if whatever you say will be analyzed or spun rather than accepted?

v        If she didn't hear what he (thinks he) said, it's because he remembers wrong. He never said it. And if he did, he was speaking too quietly, or there were distractions, or he was facing in the wrong direction, or … And that's not what he said anyway. Fortunately she was smart enough not to act on it because what he said was wrong. Like everything else he says.

vi       At this point let me apologize to my wife. Mea culpa. If she reads this it's likely she'll be embarrassed. That's why I haven't told her about the incident.

vii      These are just a few of the issues between men and women that come to mind. There are many more that I won't mention like “multitasking,” a flawed issue if ever there was one (see “Two For The Price Of One,” published May 1, 2011), and the idiotic dispute about whether a toilet seat should be up or down – as if there is only one correct answer. Whoops! I mentioned some of them.

viii     And vice versa.

ix       You thought I was going to write something else, didn't you.

x        Actually, because of the nature of the ceremony, what I said was different, but, happily, it sealed the bargain.

The Value of Women

 

Believe it or not, I've finally figured out what women are good for.

At least apart from the obvious.ⁱ

After years of study of the female language, and the translation of that language to Man,ⁱⁱ I've come to the conclusion that we (men) have quite a bit to learn from women. And, by copyingⁱⁱⁱ their other techniques we can accomplish a lot.

As an example of what we can learn, consider the following hypothetical conversation^iv between me and my wife:

           M(e): “Beautiful day for a ride.”

           S(he): “After driving around for three quarters of an hour is that all you can say?”

           M: “What's the problem? Isn't the weather beautiful?”

           S: “The problem is that we're driving in circles. You have no idea where we're going.”

           M: “I'm sure we're almost there.”

           S: “What makes you so sure? We've never been in Butte before.”

           M: “How hard can it be. We'll be there in no time.”

           S: “At the rate we're going we'll be there at no time. Ask that woman over there for directions.”

           M: “That's not necessary. I can do it on my own.”

          S: “You said that half an hour ago. If you don't want to get help from a woman, ask the man on the far corner. We really should get help from someone who knows the neighborhood.”

          M: “I can figure it out on my own. Stop nagging.”

          S: “At least turn on the GPS navigator I got for you.”

          M: “All right, if that will shut you up. But I really don't need it.”

Of course I needed it, but I'm a man and I couldn't admit that. It involved a loss of face. And to a woman. Unthinkable. But by acceding to her “nagging” I was able to do what I had actually wanted to do long before that,^v even though I couldn't suggest it myself. By grudgingly accepting her “unnecessary” interference, I wound up getting the help I had maintained I didn't need. After all, I could have done it on my own. (And if you put an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters they could write Shakespeare. Not his works but his name – if you're lucky and have a lot of time at your disposal.)

And, of course, that's not all. Many times I've seen my wife snacking after dinner because she didn't get enough to eat. There wasn't enough for the two of us but she gave me a “man-sized” portion and took the leftovers for herself. She didn't say anything about it, but I noticed. I didn't say anything either except to ask her if she had enough. Naturally she said yes and I was relieved. I knew better than to pursue the subject.

Whether I leave the toilet seat up or have to be reminded of an appointment or other obligation, I'm not concerned. Though I may be gently chided, the repercussions of my inattention are usually – though not always – minimal. In any case I deny any responsibility. For example, I just don't need as much time to prepare to go out as my wife does. She takes too long anyhow. I never forget we're going out, but I don't see any reason to rush since I'd just have to wait for her anyhow. That's why I haven't started to get ready. I know about our appointment. It's her fault, not mine.

Anyway, that's the way it is. I'm a man, and I can do it on my own. I don't need help. I'll take it if offered, but only resentfully. It's a concession to her.^vi

“Your car keys are on the windowsill near the bookcase.”

“I know that. I've been walking instead of driving the last three days to get more exercise. What do you think I am? An idiot?”

Fortunately, she didn't answer.

Next episode: “Come Fly With Me” – No. I don't mean “Come fly me.”

i     I'm not referring to sex, important as it may be, but to other abilities. Though our interests, skills, and problem-solving techniques are different, there is certainly equality of intelligence between men and women. If that of women is not greater. The purpose of this essay is to explore some of the differences. Some may view it as condescending. It isn't meant that way. After over fifty years of marriage and frustration with behavior that I viewed as inferior to my own, I realized that I (hard as it may be to believe) wasn't perfect. In fact much of what I did would have been impossible without being pointed in the right direction. Perhaps that's the greatest difference between the sexes. Men favor action – though it isn't always directed accurately. Women have better aim.

ii    First of all, Man is a language. It is somewhat more straightforward than Woman. A yes-no question can be answered by a single word rather than by a paragraph which doesn't really respond to the original question but usually involves asking a question in response. But more to the point, here are some examples of my translation: “Wouldn't you like” (in Woman) means “I want,” (to a man) “Do you think … ?” means “I want,” and “Don't you think … ?” means “I want and so do you.” “Thank you, but you didn't have to ...” means “All right. You can live another year.” See also “Invitation To The Dance” (a previous blog – seven or eight months ago).

iii     “Aping” is probably a better word when talking about men.

iv    There is no relationship between the following dialog and any real conversation. It is purely fictional and any similarity to a real conversation is coincidental.

v     Actually, I was angry at her for not nagging sooner. We could have saved a lot of time if she weren't so pig-headed as to let me blunder on my own.

vi    I'm good that way.

Sex And The Single Cell

 

It all started with a single cell.ⁱ Life, I mean. And then, after a long time,ⁱⁱ we reached our (sub) species – Homo sapiens (sapiens).

The earliest cells were sexless. They were all pretty much the same. But as the cells divided so did the species, and ultimately there developed a system of reproduction based upon two different “types” within each species – a “male” and a “female.” Usually in the animal kingdom, but certainly not invariably, the two types occurred in different individuals. That's the way it is in humans, and weⁱⁱⁱ are grateful for it. Men are different from women. Oh! You noticed. Anyway, vive la différence!

Along the way patterns developed. The females bore the young and cared for them.^iv The males, who begot those young, generally hunted and provided sustenance for all. They usually retained the ability to father longer than the females retained their fertility, but the females typically outlived the males. And that's the way it is now. It's generally accepted, and “the way things are” among most species. It's the unquestioned pattern among lions, elephants, mice, and sheep, and many others. Only among humans is there a questioning of these roles. We're the only species that denigrates that difference^v and in which significant numbers of our members seek to possess the attributes of the other type. And in many ways^vi that's difficult or impossible. Because of evolution.

Men and women are different in terms of visible anatomy, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that we're wired differently. We have different hormonal systems, temperaments, emotions, and interests. Because we're wired differently, we think and act differently. Clearly, whatever the contribution of nurture and culture, there is a major component of difference that can be attributed to nature.^vii

But evolution occurs in many ways. While it's not completely clear how we got to this point, women now get more undergraduate and graduate degrees than men, they have higher salaries in some^viii age categories, they control most of consumer spending, and they've changed the nature of education. The classroom used to be faulted for teaching boys at the expense of girls, but it seems to be the other way now. And there's been a change in the language.^ix “He” used to be the default pronoun, but nowadays “they,”^x and often “she,” are finding their way into print and speech more and more often.^xi And, for a variety of reasons, distinctions between the sexes^xii are being played down or eliminated. Among others, unisex clothing, toilets, and hair-care establishments are common, and many schools and jobs that formerly were identified with one sex or the other are now “personed” equally, or now have more members of the group that once either shunned the positions or were shunned by them. Unisex has replaced unicell (with a long stop for two sexes along the way). In part this may be attributed to a changing of qualifications for membership which may or may not be appropriate. However other causes can be assumed as well. Some kind of evolution seems to be responsible for many of the changes. If that evolution is social or political, it is evolution nonetheless. Perhaps it represents the victory of brains over brawn, though to characterize the possessors of either of those qualities would be frowned upon in our current society.^xiii

Not that the changes are bad. There's no denying that males have used physical means to maintain their position in society and that females have been limited by their role as the bearers of children. But there are many, both men and women, who favor this situation – this division of responsibilities. Many men are flustered by competition for jobs by women, and many women resent the pressure to be childless or to have their husbands or other surrogates rear their children. To a great degree, evolution has conditioned us to be like our ancestors in this regard, whether we are speaking of humans or of humanity's predecessors.

One feature of the change cannot be explained adequately by evolution, however. That is the apparent increase in identification with a gender other than that determined biologically. It's not clear if this is a real change or reflects the greater visibility of those who would have been unknown in the past. The emergence of preferences for relationships between members of the same sex should not be discouraged, but it is obvious that such “matings” will not be reproductive ones.^xiv They will not contribute to survival of the species. ^xv

And language is an issue here as well as it is in other contexts. I used to view “marriage” in a particular way, and I think it's useful to retain the term with its traditional meaning. I'd rather use “union” or some other term for the coupling of individuals of the same sex. Perhaps a term can be invented to suit that purpose and make it unnecessary to blur the distinctions between the different forms of pairing. But I suspect that blurring is the aim, and my suggestion will not be acceptable to many. Moreover I can understand the need for “partner” when dealing with same-sex unions,^xvi but I am unable to comprehend the trend for its use between married couples of opposite sexes. In the past “husband” and “wife” served this function pretty well. Anyway, language evolves, and its changes, as well as the behavioral ones, are realities.

In any event, from my perspective, a few guidelines for the new society are in order. First of all, opportunities and rewards for men and women^xvii should be equal, but they should not be made to be equal. If there are valid reasons for particular requirements – such as anatomic or physiological reasons – they should not be changed, simply because a change is possible. If, for example, a certain amount of strength or intelligence is needed for a particular job, that requirement should not be eased in the service of “equality.”^xviii It is obvious that the setting of requirements will be a problem, and the choice of the those who set the rules will be a difficult issue. But that should not deter us from trying.

Choice should be available to all, in the form of contraceptives for those who want, and in the acceptance of “life-styles” of every conceivable^xix kind – choice is certainly preferable to pressure – however

People should not be forced into associations with those with whom they may feel uncomfortable, nor should they be belittled for their feelings.^xx

Individuals and families should be able to choose a “traditional” life or any other form without worrying about pressure from those who criticize their choice.^xxi A single “acceptable” option – with any other considered betrayal – removes any possibility of free will. One choice is no choice.

In order to increase the likelihood of equality, boys and girls should be taught separately, in settings and with techniques fitted to their style of learning. Neither should be held back because the methods are not suitable.

These guidelines would be a start. Women will still live longer than men and they will be healthier (and should have pension benefits and insurance costs which recognize these differences) but the changes required by a limiting society would be minimized. People want different things and the choice should be theirs, with no society norms that must be followed – assuming there is no harm to others.^xxii

But being equal is not the same as being identical. It's nice^xxiii to have men and women. The system seems to work, and it's a lot of fun.

Next episode “Sez Who?” – It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

 

i     At least for those who accept the idea of evolution. If you believe otherwise you will probably not agree, but that dispute is for another time.

ii    I won't involve myself in arguments about the precise number of years, but it's been a while.

iii    At least most of us.

iv     That's not true of the entire animal kingdom, but it's the rule among mammals.

v    It's interesting that we deny the differences of men and women while glorying in “multiculturalism” and magnifying the differences among other groups – sometimes inventing characteristics and distinctions for them which improve their image in comparison to our own.

vi    But not all.

vii   According to the (“feminist”) dogma, the differences between the sexes are primarily based on what we are taught – nurture – as opposed to nature. After all, more than 98% of the genes of the two sexes are the same. Of course more than 98% of a woman's genes are the same as those of a female chimpanzee, but that is a distraction from the “truth” of the nurture hypothesis.

viii   A minority to be sure.

ix    At least in English. I don't know what changes, if any, have occurred in other tongues.

x     My favorite example is the new expression, “To each their own.”

xi    One of my favorite expressions is “To each, their own.”

xii    We now call them “genders,” which is, itself, a change in the language.

xiii    Indeed, the carriers of culture, movies, television, and the like, make a point of putting women in roles intended to demonstrate their power – physical and professional.

xiv    Adoption is an option for these couples, but the reproduction is usually done by others. Even artificial insemination requires people of opposite sexes.

xv    The argument can be made that childless unions are preferable to world overpopulation and abortion, and that as such they have evolutionary value. The existence of homosexuality prior to such overpopulation weakens this argument.

xvi    And in situations where unmarried people are living together.

xvii    Whatever their sexual orientation.

xviii   I recall one production of “On The Town” in which a Japanese man had the role of guard at an American naval port during World War II. It was a victory of equal opportunity, race-blind casting and equality over reality.

xix    That's probably a bad word to choose.

xx    “Hate speech” is just as deplorable when aimed at those who are accused of using it. Sadly, we live in an age when freedom of speech is subject to political review and approval given only to those who say the “right” things and use the right euphemisms.

xxi    See previous note. Because freedom of speech allows people to say almost anything, it is inevitable that one group will fault the ways of another. There's no stopping that. But we must all realize that we can and should pursue our own way of life irrespective of those criticisms. Those who feel and express them are the ones with the problem.

xxii    Obviously some rules are necessary. Every society must set limits on the actions of its members. Murder and molestation, for example, must be addressed.

xxiii   In my view.

Two For The Price Of One?

 

You know that funny sound you hear when you're in the middle of a telephone conversation? The one that tells you that someone else is trying to reach you. It's “Call Waiting.” So you put the first party on hold while you speak to the second. Speaking as a first party, it's very annoying. I'm the one doing the waiting. I'm being ignored. If only you could multitask and speak to both of us at once without either of us being involved in the other conversation. But you can't. It's not just you, it's the technology also.

I have to admit it. I'm a man. I like to do one thing at a time. When I'm focusing on one thing I don't want to be distracted by another. I'm told that women can multitask better than us dinosaurs. Actually, I've been told that so many times I've always assumed it was true. But the more I think about it the more convinced I am that such a statement is an oversimplification. So let me muddy the waters.

I can walk and chew gum at the same time.ⁱ And my heart beats and my intestine digests as well. That's multitasking. Well, maybe not as we now think about it, but that all has to do with definitions. So let's start there. The word itself seems to have originated in 1966 and was originally a computer term referring to time-sharing. A computer could seem to do two things at once because it was so fast at following instructions that there was time available before the next instruction was given. So it could perform some unrelated task. Two jobs could be interleaved, and the machine seemed to be doing two things at once. It didn't fulfill the definition of multitasking now in use, but it seemed to. It wasn't really multitasking as we know it,ⁱⁱ but that's what was happening from a practical point of view. When multicore processors were introduced the computers could actually perform two jobs simultaneously, since the “cores” – little computers themselves – operated independently.

Since the late 1990s, when we started using the term to describe people, it has evolved to refer primarily to that – to the simultaneous performance of two or more tasks. No interleaving. The guy in the car over there speeding along at 80 while he's on his cell phone is multitasking. So's the one on the other side of you who has one arm around his date while his other hand is on the “necking knob.”ⁱⁱⁱ Municipalities don't seem to think that it's such a great idea – the telephone, that is. In fact it's illegal in a lot of places.^iv There is a general conviction held by legislators that a person cannot do two things at once, and that switching back and forth from one to another – interleaving – is risky. Have the lawmakers gotten it right for once?

Before dealing with that point, though, I'd like to list different kinds of activities as I understand them, to see how they fit in.

1. Unconscious: Activities like the heart beating and other functions concerning of which we have neither direct knowledge or control.

2. Automatic: Actions, like breathing, of which we are aware if we choose to be, and which we can control, if only for limited periods of time. And only if we want to.

3. Inconsequential: These are the kinds of things we do without thinking, but which are completely voluntary and can be discontinued at will. Chewing gum is a good example. As is walking. Or the common cases of talking on the telephone.^v

4. Simple, learned or memorized: Uncomplicated voluntary actions like driving on an straight empty road when it is not rush hour and the weather is clear. Also in this category are the singing of a familiar song, doing the laundry, and skimming a book or the newspaper.

5. Cognitive activities: Concentration is required in order to perform these activities successfully. Among these are reading (as opposed to skimming), doing a puzzle, making a calculation, arguing fiercely, holding a serious telephone conversation, driving during rush hour, brain surgery, and fixing a rocket engine (or, for that matter, a soufflé).

The reason for this categorization is that the first three classifications can, and usually are, carried out successfully without thought and can be done simultaneously – and as such they are true examples of multitasking by the current definition. Indeed, most of them can be performed along with acts that fall into the fourth and fifth groups.^vi It's a little chancier for the fourth group. Switching occurs here. That's between true multitasking and switching (interleaving) itself. If, for example, you're singing an old song, you may have to stop other activities and focus on long-forgotten words. Perhaps you'll remember them, but not at the same time as you're skimming the newspaper. So you have to switch back and forth.

But the fifth category is the most significant to the discussion. In Michael Frayn's play, Copenhagen, Margrethe (Bohr) gives to Walter Heisenberg a layman's^vii understanding of her husband's concept of complementarity, a principle of quantum physics: “... If you're doing something you have to concentrate on you can't also be thinking about doing it, and if you're thinking about doing it then you can't actually be doing it....” Another way of putting it is that, when dealing with things that require thought, you can't do two things at once. Like driving while texting or speaking on the telephone. Putting telephones and computers in cars is an unsound and even a reckless^viii act, but it probably sells cars and makes money for the manufacturers, and that's certainly more important than safety.

Cognitive activities require focus, and even a computer – however fast it may be – can only focus on one thing at a time. My wife often does crossword puzzles while watching television, but when asked what happened on the show she is often unable to answer. It's clear that the answer is unimportant to her – and that's the secret of “multitasking.” If getting something mostly right, if incomplete knowledge of what's going on is acceptable, switching back and forth is fine. And sometimes my wife starts on one thing and gets distracted along the way by something she sees, and which she must address before completing whatever she started.^ix According to recent studies, the corpus callosum, which is the site of communication between the two sides of the brain, is larger in women than men, so I guess they can switch faster than men. That means they can appear to be multitasking or, using the more recent definition, actually multitask faster. But until evolution has gotten around to giving us two independent “cores” for cognitive activities, we won't be doing real multitasking.

I can wait, though. I have something else to do.

Next episode: “Dear _______” – Life, death, and all the rest. Or at least some of it.

i     The first reference to that quotation that I can find is in 1956 and was said of a basketball player in Denton, Texas. Lyndon Johnson is credited with its origination later that year but he didn't use the word “walk.” Rather he used a somewhat more down-to-earth verb which needn't be included here. Will Rogers had been described in 1926 as the only man who could “chew gum and talk sense at the same time,” and as early as 1907 it had been said of women (remember, I'm not saying this – I'm quoting the Iowa City Daily Press): “A woman cannot talk and chew gum at the same time, anyhow.” The expression probably grew out of this.

ii     It was really doing only one thing at a time but doing it fast.

iii    Do they still have “necking knobs?” Or, for that matter, do they still have dates?

iv   It should be illegal in all. But it's not – yet. The telephone, that is. Can you imagine legislation against necking?

v    You may wonder why I place those important discussions you have in this category. I leave that to you to figure out.

vi    For example you can read while sitting in the bathroom. That would qualify as a form of multitasking.

vii   Laywoman's?

viii  Better, wreckful.

ix   I sometimes think she has a form of attention deficit disorder, being easily distracted and doing too many things at once to the detriment of all. Perhaps, however, this is a strength, allowing her (women?) to accomplish more – even if imperfectly – than I (men). After all, she noticed where I left my glasses and can help me when I'm totally befuddled.