relativity

Einstein was right:  weight is relative to age.

the eightfold chiks

All eight eggs hatched out successfully.  Mum is busy teaching them how to forage.  I think that brings the total to 15 new chiks this year, so far.

raison de marvin

People say believe half of what you see
And none of what you hear.

I bet you wondered how I knew?

Well, I heard it through the grape vine.

finished

The new path is made from Kellet quarry tailings. It's the stuff the big contractors don't want: full of dust and fluff. So what's going to bind that path when a decent flood pours down it? Nothing really, and it's only a couple inches thick, if that. That is why I'm not optimistic about the job lasting. We'll see.

gravelty

The pile is going down down down......










.....and almost reached clod's plot.

but there is still a lot to do...

....and what bright spark laid the water supply pipe 2" below the surface along the line of the path?

Oh....and please don't run over my compost bin which is parked legally.

in the greenhouse

Stuff....growing....in a greenhouse.  Always good, that.

the path of least resistance

In the long wet winters, the allotment paths turn into a quagmire of mud 1/2 way up yer wellies.

Every morning you have to squelch through it to get down to feed the chikkins.  It's like being at Glastonbury in a bad year without the music. Sometimes your arse gets intimately aquainted with the mud.

When the fiftieth person had gone over, teh committee eventually decided to fix it by laying some paths.  That was a looooong time ago, before the flood of Noah.  However, work did start this week: the first order of business, obviously, was to dump all the hardcore at the allotment gate so no one could get in.

The next thing is to scrape a bit off the top...about the thickness of a turf.










After that you roll out a bit of weed-proof Axminster and bung an inch of hardcore on top and Bob the builder's yer uncle.

Does anyone think that'll be enough? I haz me doubts...

clodhoppering

It's been a long time coming this year but, at long last, clodhoppers is beginning to look like it might actually be productive.  Most of the crops are in.  There's some work to do fettling the greenhouse....but it can wait until I get a round tuit.

terwitt terwoo

Then again.....if this was the kind of owl in the beautiful pea-green boat, my advice would be to leg it, no matter what size stoat you were or what variety of martial arts training you'd had.

It's a grey owl in the Kielder forest.

Sixnets

 Awww.

Cygnet Ring

Unusual to get this close without mum or dad showing the least sign of being at all bothered.  I must look like a pushover or a gentle soul.

The Owl and the Pussycat

The Owl and the Pussycat went to sea
In a beautiful pea-green boat
They took some honey and plenty of money
But their biggest mistake was the Stoat

What Pryce Justice?

It's too easy to join in the tsk-tsking and dismissal of the first set of jurors in the Vicky Pryce case as a bunch of incompetent nitwits incapable of understanding basic judicial guidance.  But is that really the case or is there more to it under the bonnet?  So I looked at the questions that the jurors put to the judge, here they are:

Q1. You have defined the defence of marital coercion on page 5 of the jury bundle and also explained what does not fall within the definition by way of examples. Please expand on the definition, provide examples of what may fall within the defence, specifically ‘will was overborne’ and does the defence require violence or physical threat?

Answer: “The pressure applied by the husband need not involve violence or physical threats. The law requires that a husband was present and coercion was to such an extent that she was impelled to commit an offence because she truly believed she had no real choice but to do so.”

Q2. In the scenario that the defendant may be guilty but there may not be enough evidence provided by the prosecution at the material time when she signed the notice of intent to prosecute to feel sure beyond reasonable doubt, what should the verdict be, not guilty or unable or not safe to bring a verdict?

Answer: “Turning to page three of my written directions, the direction is combining the burden and standard of proof with the need for a majority verdict. If, having carefully considered all of the evidence, at least 10 of you feel sure of the guilt of the defendant then it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. On the other hand, if after careful consideration at least 10 of you were feeling less than sure of guilt, then it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. And so it follows that if at least 10 of you are not sure, the appropriate verdict is one of not guilty.”

Q3. If there is debatable evidence supporting the prosecution case can inferences be drawn to arrive at a verdict? If so can inferences/speculation be drawn on the full evidence or only where you have directed us to do so?

Answer: “The drawing of an inference is a permissible process. Speculation is not. In this case the evidence on which the prosecution relies is largely undisputed, and where you are willing to draw inferences from that is entirely a matter for you.”

Q4. Can you define what is reasonable doubt?

Answer: “The prosecution must make you feel sure beyond reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt that is reasonable. These are ordinary English words that the law does not allow me to help you with, beyond the written directions [he had already given them]“.

Q5. Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?

Answer: “The answer to that question is a firm no. That is because it would be completely contrary to the directions I have given you.”

Q6. Can we infer anything from the fact that the defence didn’t bring witnesses from the time of the offence, such as the au pair or neighbours?

Answer: “You must not, as I have now emphasised many times, speculate on what witnesses who have not been called might have said or draw inferences from their absence. Her evidence is that no one else, other than Mr Huhne, was present when she signed the form.”

Q7. Does the defendant have an obligation to present a defence?

Answer: “There is no burden on the defendant to prove her innocence and there is no burden on her to prove anything at all. The defendant does not have an obligation to present a defence, in this case the defendant has given evidence and it is for you to judge the evidence from her in the same way you would any other witness.”

Q8. Can we speculate about the events at the time Miss Pryce sent the form or what was in her mind when she sent the form?

Answer: “The answer to that is an equally firm no. The position in a criminal is that no one must speculate. There is a difference between speculation, which is not permitted, and inference, which is the drawing of common-sense conclusions from the facts of which you are also sure. Speculation is guesswork. That is not the same as inference at all.”

Q9. The jury is considering the facts provided but is continuing to ask the questions raised by the police. Given that the case has come to court without answers to these questions please advise on which facts in the bundle the jury should count on to determine a not guilty or guilty verdict.

Answer: “You must decide the case on the evidence [put before the court]. It is for you to decide which you consider to be important, truthful and reliable then decide what common-sense conclusions you can safely draw. It is not for me to tell you which piece or pieces of evidence are important and which are not. That is a matter for you to decide.”

Q10. ”Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling she had no choice i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows, he ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?

Answer: “This is not, with respect, a question about this case at all. Vicky Pryce does not say that any such reason formed any part of her decision to do what she did. Answering this question will not help you in any way whatsoever to reach a true verdict in this case. I must direct you firmly to focus on the real issues in this case.”

Mr Justice Sweeney went on: “I want to repeat the absolutely vital importance of your following my directions of law to the letter and the fact that it is an equally important part of each of your individual duties to ensure that all of you do follow my directions of law to the letter.

“Without doing so, you are simply not in a position to reach a true verdict according to the evidence one way or the other.

“It is essential that each of you ensure that my directions of law are faithfully applied by all of you. If, for whatever reason, any one or more of you feel you do not understand my directions, then it would be wholly wrong to reach a verdict one way or the other.

Well, do those seem entirely 'unreasonable' questions to you? Some, possibly.  But really...what does 'reasonable doubt' actually mean?  Without corroborating evidence from witnesses, how can the prosecution possibly 'prove' that Vicky Pryce's testimony of marital coercion is false, unless they rule it out by defining marital coercion in such a way that discounts the abuse of power in relationship?  

What does marital coercion mean exactly? In the judges words: 

"A wife’s will would not have been overborne if, for example, she was persuaded by force of argument to choose (albeit reluctantly) to commit the offence rather than to take another course, or if she was persuaded (albeit reluctantly) to commit the offence out of love for, or loyalty to, her husband or family, or to avoid inconvenience (whether to herself or others). Her will must have been overborne in the sense that she was impelled to commit the offence because she truly believed that she had no real choice but to do so.

It is not, however, for the defendant to prove that Mr Huhne coerced her – rather it is for the prosecution to prove that he did not do so. The Prosecution may do that (as they seek to in this case) either by making you feel sure that Mr Huhne was not present when Ms Pryce committed the offence, or by making you feel sure that her will was not overborne (i.e. that she was not impelled to commit the offence because she truly believed that she had no real choice but to do so). 

Impelled? How impelled, argument, loyalty, emotional blackmail?  Certainly not, it seems, threat or violence?  No real choice?  What does that mean?

Sorry, but I don't think it fair for the media or the judiciary or whoever else to be blowing rasberries at that jury. There are legitimate questions to be asked about how jurors are given guidance, particularly when someones liberty and career are at stake.

   

LLAW EHT FFO RORRIM RORRIM

So I started the online philosophy course being run by Edinburgh University.  It's good, but I just can't keep up with all the discussion forums that have sprung up.  I just don't have the time to read all that stuff, and, even if I did, there would be no time left for drinking thinking.

There are a lot of students trying to answer some basic questions the lecturer has thrown out to get things going.  Questions like: What is the meaning of life? What is philosophy? Is it important?

In a way it seems so self indulgent, so petty: the chances of YOU existing are beyond calculation. YOU have already won the biggest lottery in the universe, ever ever, ever.

Imagine you don't exist, (it's not easy if you try). There can be no time and space, no cause and effect, no ups and downs, no singing and dancing, no music, no children, no cold beer. You are just not there. History tells you that stuff already happened while you weren't' around, but so what? It will go on happening after you've gone. Sooooo what?

Philosophy is the universe experiencing you, experiencing life. If you were not in it, it would probably cry. Get your tummy tickled! Say thanks!

That isn't very philosophical really.  I'm just going to posit that philosophy is life looking at itself in a mirror and trying to see a clear enough reflection to understand itself....but, like a babies eyes, they can't focus properly, or the mirror is dirty, or something like that.

Or maybe life is just so so gobsmacked/excited/obsessed/astounded/infatuated by seeing it's own reflection at all, that, like some love struck teenager, it's gazing at itself with moony eyes and stinking the bathroom out with Lynx deodorant.

Anyways... in my previous post, the one where I quoted Russell saying... "when you think, you think of something.... therefore both thought and language require objects outside themselves."  Well, that might be problematic in the sense that you immediately create the duality by looking in the mirror and you see something... but it isn't real, it's a reflection...nevertheless, it's very compelling and very easy to get infatuated with it.  I'm really talking about the process involved in creating the idea of 'self' in consciousness and then seperating that out as something special, as something that, when its attention is directed towards itself...something funny happens. It starts to think that it has a core of identity that transcends the nuts and bolts of normal, everyday, bog standard conscious experiencing.  It also thinks that that core can somehow survive itself or that some sort of powerful external agency can grant that continuation.  It's too painful to think that the beautiful, if somewhat smelly, teenager can no longer BE somehow.

The other aspect to think about is: What consolidates this process of the creation of identity?  Is it memory?  Is that the factor?  If that's not it, what is the nature of the vessel that contains this 'I' notion? Does this reduce metaphysics to the explanation of experiencing?

Questions for another day.

Monist Minnie

I never realised quite how many philosophers were monists of one sort or another.  The list would include Zeno, Parmenides, Plato, Plotinus, Spinoza, Berkeley and, if you count panpsychists, you've got to add in Leibniz, William James and now, it seems, Galen Strawson as well, and a host of others I've missed out.

Whatever nuanced flavour of monist they are, the thing that unites them is that they all think that the universe is just one kind of stuff, or, if you like, one kind of consciousness. It's very similar to the common religious notion that spirituality stems from one source but has many different expressions. In fact, I have a theory that Parmenides bunked off to India via Halifax and re-surfaced as Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha. The timing fits.

Of course, Buddha taught that this world is illusion, and today science is confirming it.  Things are not what they seem to be.  The commonality of experience, of thought, of toe-stubbing,is deluding us all the time.

Still, what does it mean?  Bertrand Russell, who started off in the idealist tradition in philosophy which essentially viewed the mental world as in some way more fundamental, more basic, that the material, physical world, later moved to reject that idea and came to the view that the material world really does exist independently from us i.e. it isn't just the way we perceive the world that makes it what it seems to be.  He identified a problem with the monist viewpoint and put it like thusly...

"When you think, you think of something; when you use a name, it must be the name of something. Therefore both thought and language require objects outside themselves. And since you can think of a thing or speak of it at one time as well as another, whatever can be thought of or spoken of must exist at all times. Consequently there can be no change, since change consists in things coming into being or ceasing to be."

Well, I'm not sure about that: does it not it depend on exactly what you are meaning by 'change'? Also on what you mean by exist?  Because we can think about something does not mean that it actually exists, rather that it subsists and is dependent on the mental machinery that is doing the thinking about it. Anyway, Russells' antipathy to monism might have stemmed from his work on the logical foundations of mathematics, and the realisation that, if monism holds up, mathematics gets stonewalled at the number one..... because there isn't a number two!  There are no discrete things, numbers, sets, classes or whatever you want to call them.  All is one.  But distaste alone isn't going to make the problem go away: we can construct our ideas about mathematical relationships between discreet objects to a fantastic degree of logical coherence without any of it corresponding to anything 'real' at a more fundamental level - whatever that means.  Russell might be like Aesop's fox - jumping up many times, but failing to get to the luscious grapes hanging there, tantalisingly just out of reach and slinking off in disgust, tail between legs, muttering 'bet they're not ripe anyway.' Maybe.  But mathematics stuck on the number one isn't going to build an aeroplane, is it?

It's just common sense that things are seperate isn't it?  Well no.  Remember we're all stardust, and if the universe turns out to be one single entangled quantum field, then, as Gribbin would have it "Particles that were together in an interaction remain in some sense parts of a single system, which responds together to further interactions. Virtually everything we see and touch and feel is made up of collections of particles that have been involved in interactions with other particles right back through time, to the Big Bang… Indeed, the particles that make up my body once jostled in close proximity and interacted with the particles that now make up your body. We are as much parts of a single system as the two photons flying out of the heart of the Aspect experiment." Eughhhh!  But Nadeau and Kafatos agree....“If non-locality is a property of the entire universe, then we must also conclude that an undivided wholeness exists on the most basic and primary level in all aspects of physical reality.”

As to panpsychism, Galen Strawson holds to the view that there is an experiential conscious aspect to what exists because of the very fact that experience DOES exist.  In other words, that consciousness is somehow basic and fundamental to reality but we have the idea that it is an emergent property of complexity instead because anything else seems barking mad.  In a way, his is an argument from incredulity which I cannot buy into.  He sais "how could experience arise just from putting wholly non experiential things together in a certain way or in a certain pattern......"why have we simply assumed that the physical is in its fundamental nature non experiential?  What's the evidence for that idea?  There is none."  He goes on to argue that it is just pure prejudice that we have assumed it to be otherwise and why not instead assume the opposite and sidestep the whole problem of explaining the emergence of consciousness from non-consciousness.

I can think of a few good reasons and I think he's over egging the problem of emergence and building that into the insurmountable problem it may turn out not to be.

I knicked Scot's photo for this post, but he's busy driving the Mars rover so might not notice.....:-))

Gender Wars

Most radical feminists will define patriarchy as a set of  hierarchical social structures designed and controlled by men in order to subordinate, oppress, suppress, objectify, exploit, use and abuse women to male advantage.  In their analysis, the conception of power relations in society is very much a negative one.  It is as 'power over.' rather than as 'power to'.  This contrasts quite starkly with the analytic, liberal, or eco- feminists conception: that power is productive, creative, enabling; and it can be nurturing rather than controlling, unifying, rather than divisive.

In the radfem version, reality and data are subordinate to theory.

That in itself, renders patriarchy theory and its theoretical components all but useless as a tool for social analysis.

Patriarchy theory fails because of its limited explanatory value and its insistance that men and women are fundamentaly enemies, that women are 'victims' and men 'perps'.

If you want to insist on a victim and blame culture then call men and women 'the victims' and blame 'the genes', because natural selection is utterly indifferent to your gender politickking. 

Evolution selects for traits that maximise gene replication.  It is not interested in the idea that one gender is superior to the other.  Why on earth would it be?  It selects traits in both genders that maximise reproductive potential, and that is where one should look for foundational explanations of  gender differences and of the social structures that humanity has constructed over the millenia.

You can't just look at societies apex and consider that men universally hold all the power and control in some sort of deliberate conspiracy to subjugate women without also considering the bottom of society where men form the vast majority of the victims of violence, the prison population, the homeless, the 90+% of deaths in work related accidents and so forth.

It's easy enough to understand the passion and anger generated in these debates and, given our history, it would be somewhat remarkable if there were not now a percentage of both misogynists and misandrists in the population, but I don't see how any further such polarisations can be in any way helpful.

Would it not be utterly surprising if both men and women had not developed effective strategies over the last half million years aimed at having their different needs and drives met and maximising their reproductive potential? 

Any analysis of society that fails to include such considerations is bound to fail and it is in this sense in which I find patriarchy theory to be limited, blinkered and inadequate and to hold as much explanatory value as, say, biology without evolutionary theory or geology without plate tectonics.

Further discussion of the topic would, of course, be interesting....but dyed in the wool gender warriors from either side of this debate, need not apply.  I'm interested in unity and genuine equality, not division.

Chocolate Fireguard Feminism

The real issue will be about how successful men are at adapting to social and demographic change. Not doing too well atm.

Failure will mean increasing gender hostility which will be approximately as useful as a chocolate fireguard. 

Hanna Rosin expands on this.......

International Mens Day -Spreading Misandry

This is an edited extract from the conclusion of Spreading Misandry by Katherine K. Young & Paul Nathanson

There have probably always been feminists who have recognized misandry and been troubled by it. It flies in the face of everything feminists have learned from the experience of women and everything that some feminists claim about the innate decency of women. But it is worth pointing out that this extraordinary phenomenon, the dehumanization of half the population, has gone almost unnoticed not only by the reviewers and journalists who work for the mass media but also by the critics and theorists who write for academic journals. Despite the vaunted capacity of women for empathy, only a few feminist publications, albeit ones of profound moral significance, have so far expressed sympathy for men in general, except as a way of encouraging men to believe that feminism is in their own interest.

Until very recently, moreover, the few feminists who dared to speak out against misandry were usually declared to be enemies of feminism, or even enemies of women, and thus effectively silenced. Most feminists deny misandry. When challenged, which happens occasionally, they use three strategies: excusing it, justifying it, or trivializing it. 

Women who try to excuse misandry acknowledge it as a moral problem. They do not approve of it, but they are willing to tolerate it, at least for the time being. There are several characteristic excuses. One of them is based on psychology. It is a lamentable but inevitable fact, some observe, that most women see nothing wrong with attacks on men, masculinity, or even maleness itself. People always find it hard to feel sympathy for those they consider privileged (although that did not prevent many women from feeling sympathy for the unhappily married Princess of Wales, who had access to privilege and status beyond the wildest dreams of most women or men). It is even harder for people to feel sympathy for those they consider rivals or enemies.

Another excuse is based on expediency. It is a lamentable but inevitable fact, some say, that many women succumb to misandry. However, when feeling endangered, people tend to close ranks. In a more secure future, maybe women will address the problem of misandry. Maybe, or maybe not. 

Underlying all excuses for misandry is the tenacious belief that men have "all the power." Resistance to men's studies, for instance, is often based on the belief that only victims are worthy of study. The response among female academics is often as follows: "Oh, please. Something like 90 per cent of the world's resources are owned and operated by 3 per cent of the population, all of whom are white males." Never mind that this 3 per cent is a tiny fraction of the male population, even of the white male population. The underlying assumption, in any case, is that men cannot be damaged by misandry. Anyone who complains should "take it like a man." These women seldom take seriously forms of power other than physical, political, or economic power. The fact that many men do not have godlike power in any of these realms, something anyone can observe merely by walking down the street or watching the nightly news, makes no difference. Neither does the fact that not even physical, political, or economic power can generate emotional invincibility (assuming that this would be a good thing). They see men as a "class," in any case, not as individuals or even as a class with a "diversity" of "voices." Rendering women either unwilling or unable to see men as fully human beings, as people who can indeed be hurt both individually and collectively, might well be the single most serious flaw in feminism. If men are truly vulnerable in any way, after all, then they can surely be expected either to fight back or to withdraw sullenly when threatened at a fundamental level. And the level of identity is about as fundamental as you can get.

Women who trivialize misandry belong in a second category, probably the most popular one (although they could be included in the first category on the grounds that the easiest way to excuse misandry is to argue that it is a trivial phenomenon.) They sometimes acknowledge misandry as a moral problem but not a serious one. They are willing to tolerate it, therefore, though not necessarily to encourage it.

Both unsophisticated women and ideological feminists are likely to say, for different reasons, that pop cultural misandry is ephemeral and trivial; lapses in good taste, common sense, or even common decency may be excused. But they would never tolerate that argument in connection with pop cultural misogyny: feminists have argued very effectively that there can be no such thing as taking that too seriously. In fact, they have made popular culture one of the chief battlegrounds in their struggle for women. 

The world presented in movies or on television, they continue, is merely a fantasy world. Well, yes, but it is also a self-contained and often convincing simulation of the real world. Indeed, movies fail at the box office and shows fail in the ratings when they do not convince viewers of a likeness between the fantasy world and the real one, when they do not encourage the willing suspension of disbelief. With both this and their own intellectual or political interests in mind, those who create these productions carefully select features of everyday life that they consider significant and reject others that they consider insignificant. Virtually nothing of the real world that appears onscreen, in theatres or at home, is there by accident. Similarly, virtually nothing of the real world that "disappears" onscreen is absent by accident. In other words, movies and shows are never direct transcriptions of reality; they are always interpretations of reality. What would otherwise be dry theories of interest only to academics become powerfully evocative experiences of interest, if made with skill, to all viewers. They are secular myths. Their moral value, therefore, depends more on what kind of secular myth than on their correlation with empirical information that can be verified by historians or social scientists. It could argued that misandric movies such as those discussed in this book are either immoral or unhealthy, for instance, because they encourage people to stereotype men as evil, psychotic, or, at best, inadequate. The same argument would apply to movies that stereotype other groups of people, including women. But moral consistency is not always a high priority among critics or, for that matter, the population at large.

When criticized for their silence in the face of misandry, at any rate, these women usually argue that only "radical" feminists on the "lunatic fringe" could ever be found guilty of hatred. Others argue that misandry might have been common in the past — in the 1980s, say — but is no longer. Maybe they actually believe that. We have been told for decades that women are innately "nurturing" beings and thus virtually immune to hating. Women who do hate must therefore be rare anomalies, either the crazed victims of a male-dominated society or the crazed victims of some psychological or physiological disorder. Theory not-withstanding, the evidence presented to everyone in everyday life indicates that women are no less capable of prejudice and hatred than men. 

Women who try to justify misandry are in an entirely different category. They do not acknowledge it as a moral problem, but on the contrary see it as a moral and practical duty. Thus, they are willing not merely to tolerate it but also to encourage it. 

Some women try to justify misandry as a legitimate "choice" for women, a "voice" for those who have been "silenced." Expressing anger is useful, they believe, as one feature of collective therapy for women. But they make the dubious assumption that misandry is about anger, not hatred. Even feminists who disapprove of Andrea Dworkin's misandric claim that any act of sexual intercourse with men amounts to rape, for example, often defend her as someone who "pushes the boundaries" and thus promotes the cause of women (albeit in a way that embarrasses some of them). 

In its most sophisticated form, this attempt at justification is couched in terms of postmodernism. Once that became de rigueur among feminists, they could argue that man-hating was merely one example of the "diversity" or "pluralism" within feminism. According to one variant of this strategy, misandry is not aimed at all men but only at those with "privileged" status: rich men, white men, or any other group of elite men. Yet the distinction is often more theoretical and politically correct than practical, because they go on to argue that all men benefit from the behaviour of those few. Implicit, therefore, is the belief that all men are intentionally or unintentionally the enemies of Women and therefore legitimate targets of attack in popular culture. 

Other women try to justify misandry on the purely practical grounds of political expediency. Even passive sympathy with men in connection with misandry would be tantamount to sympathy for the enemy or even, as one feminist put it in when her university was considering the establishment of a men's studies program, sympathy for Nazis. Whether in connection with movies and talk shows or greeting cards and comic strips, moreover, misandry is seen as a legitimate attack on those who foster misogyny. That is fighting fire with fire. They are not troubled by the moral non sequitur. The continued existence of misogyny has nothing whatever to do with the existence of misandry, after all — not unless two wrongs make a right. To those who point out that misogyny is being fought directly through legislation and indirectly through the manipulation of public opinion, some would reply that it persists in the form of a "glass ceiling" (even though the explanation of that problem does not necessarily involve misogyny) or that it persists in non-Western countries and in non-Western subcultures within the West. Once again, though, what has one thing got to do with the other? How does the existence of misogyny justify misandry, whether in our society or any other? 

Still other women try to justify misandry with something far more sinister in mind: revenge. They argue that negative stereotypes of men are long overdue, because negative stereotypes of women have been around for so long. If that argument is to be taken seriously on moral grounds, those who use it would have to demonstrate that revenge is synonymous, or at least compatible, with justice. But if negative stereotyping is wrong when applied to women, how can it be right when applied to men? Is there nothing inherently wrong with promoting contempt or hatred for an entire group of people? If not, then things are right or wrong only when it is politically expedient to say so. In addition, advocates of this approach would have to demonstrate on purely pragmatic grounds that it is likely to bring about the desired results. The practical problem with revenge, of course, is that it quickly becomes a vicious circle. Once it is accepted as a legitimate political device, there is no way to prevent or terminate vendettas. And the current state of relations between men and women could well be described in precisely that way. 

Underlying all of these attempts to justify misandry is a fundamental problem. Morality and practicality sometimes seem incompatible. Some women believe that feeling or expressing concern for men as the victims of misandry would mean indulging in a luxury that women cannot afford — this despite the vaunted capacity of women for compassion. But since when is compassion like money? Must it be carefully budgeted by reserving it for one's own people? Must we avoid squandering it on those judged "undeserving" for one reason or another? The fact is, nevertheless, that the more compassion is "spent," the more there is to go around. 

Other women believe that taking any problem of men seriously would mean taking a non-feminist point of view. In fact, it would mean taking men as seriously as they see themselves, as people. The worldview of ideological feminism, like that of every other religion or movement, is all inclusive; nothing is beyond its purview. From that perspective, it would seem that men can be understood best through its lens. The trouble is that this form of feminism has no philosophical or moral framework for the notion that women, like men, can succumb to sexism or that men, like women, can be seriously damaged by hatred. To the extent that feminists refuse to focus much attention on their own gains (mainly because doing so would undermine their call for continuing political action), and to the extent that they refuse to acknowledge the problems of men (including misandry as the intentional or unintentional fallout from ideological feminism), they are morally implicated in the problem. That perspective leaves women largely unaccountable for their own behaviour. 


What about the reactions of men to misandry? Ironically, many ordinary men have a vested interest in not seeing the pervasive misandry of everyday life. Misandry, no matter how trite it might seem on the surface, is an attack on men. Even worse, from a traditionally masculine point of view, it is an attack from the perspective of women (though not necessarily by women). To acknowledge being under attack is to acknowledge vulnerability. And to acknowledge vulnerability, for many men in our society, is to deny their own manhood, even if doing so would be in their own best interest. Being a man, they have been taught, means being in control, not necessarily of others but certainly of themselves and their own fate. These are often the men who find it easier to hide behind macho posturing than to admit being threatened by women (or by other men presumably acting on behalf of women). 

Many men, therefore, find that acknowledging the problem of rampant misandry is too painful. Some ignore it. That usually happens at a subconscious level. Other men, though, deny it. That happens on a conscious level among those who are sincerely motivated by the need to ensure justice for women, not merely by the pressure of political correctness. (Some of these men, unfortunately, actually believe that men are morally responsible for most or all of women's problems.) This could mean internalizing a negative identity, which would be both neurotic and self-destructive. But "male feminists" have discovered a way of getting around that problem: they maintain their self-respect not as members of a group (men) but as individuals at its expense (as what could be called "honorary women"). They expect nothing from other men, but they do expect to be rewarded by women for being politically correct. Not many men are impressed by the self-righteousness inherent in that position. They are alienated not only from feminists in general, therefore, but from "male feminists" in particular (even though many of them believe that men are morally obliged to help create a more egalitarian society).

Most men, however, are probably too confused to take a position specifically on misandry. They are aware at some level of consciousness that something is wrong, but they are not equipped to identify or analyse it. Even the few men who really are equipped to do so often find it difficult to say anything in public. The taboo on male vulnerability is not only experienced internally, remember, but also enforced externally. Men who admit to feeling vulnerable are attacked as cowards, and by no group more effectively than women. The ability to shame men has always been among the most useful of women's weapons. In this case, men are shamed into silence, a form of abuse that few women today would tolerate. 

What is happening to men as a result of this massive assault on their identity? How do men feel about being portrayed over and over again as psychotic or sinister thugs? What does it mean for a group of people to be identified as a class of victimizers? We will not know the full effect of all this misandry for many years. Given the predictable results of unleashing institutionalized anger against identifiable target groups (which is hatred) and the unpredictable results of manipulating collective guilt (which would be either destruction or self-destruction), this is a questionable method for pursuing social change, to say the least. In the meantime, one thing is certain: attacking the identity of any group of human beings per se is an extremely dangerous experiment. People are not like rats in a laboratory. They cannot be manipulated conveniently and safely with fairly predictable results. Misandry could convince some men to seek new sources of identity. To be effective, however, these would have to be chosen by men, not dictated by women. At issue here is identity, in short, not sociology. It should be obvious that most men consciously or unconsciously resent misandry. That is because all people resent having their identity undermined or attacked. Less obvious, perhaps, is the fact that misandry can backfire on women. What if men feel the need to reassert their identity as men? Ironically, misandry could encourage other men to reassert their identity as macho aggressors. Since our society tolerates a high level of hostility towards men as such, why be surprised when they resort to misogyny? That, after all, is a major feature of machismo. And it is surely no accident that the resurgence of machismo in the 1980s — consider movies such as Rambo and Top Gun, which suddenly ended two decades of glorifying the mentality of those men who had rejected both Vietnam and Wall Street — coincided with the flowering of ideological feminism. This particular response to misandry is clear. If men are told over and over again that they are not only brutal sub humans in general but also hostile to women in particular, they are likely to say, "So be it." Whatever their own inclinations, they realize that even a negative identity is better than no identity at all. Thus, when women think about misandry in popular culture, they should consider the danger of self-fulfilling prophecies. What goes around, according to the old saying, comes around. Or, for those who prefer biblical allusions, whoever sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind. 

That possibility is often denied by those who view misandry as a political weapon to fight misogyny. They argue that the immediate result might be polarization but the eventual result will be reconciliation. In other words, the end justifies the means. But if polarization can bring about changes for the better, it can also bring about changes for the worse. How do we know that polarization will give rise to reconciliation? We do not. At the moment, things are moving in the opposite direction. 

At any rate, the possibilities for mutual understanding between women and men did not increase in the 1990s. On the contrary, they diminished. Women such as Andrea Dworkin openly advocated that women become vigilantes and murder the men who afflict them. If any of this indicates the shape of things to come — and much of the material we have analysed might have been produced by Dworkin herself — those who hope for healing and reconciliation have every reason to look ahead with foreboding. The popular culture of misandry had a life of its own in 2000. Ideological feminists had to make only occasional appearances to ensure that it stayed that way.

Fostered by political correctness, misandry was the characteristic pattern of the 1990s. At first, it was actively promoted in academic and political circles as justifiable "anger" or a way of "pushing the boundaries." And this tendency, directly promoted on talk shows and either directly or indirectly in other genres of popular culture, quickly went mainstream. Popular culture both mediated and fostered the teaching of contempt for men. This was now the establishment. Androcentrism, often accompanied by misogyny, did not cease to exist but generally went underground (although it probably declined too, because many men really did take seriously the message that an androcentric world was unjust to women). It surfaced only in the music of very alienated subcultures, among individual men who "forgot" the new rules, and in some traditional or isolated communities. To the extent that gynocentrism and androcentrism can be described as worldviews, then the dominant worldview of this period, at least in public, was clearly gynocentrism. The fact that it has a dark underside has been ignored, excused, and trivialized. The revolution has been successful, as Marxists would say, because the new values are now so firmly embedded in everyday life that we can hardly see them, let alone challenge them. That is why we have written this book.

Plato's Cave

The poor prisoners in Plato's Cave thought that reality was the flickering shadows of the dancing marionettes on the wall they were shackled in front of all their lives.  Until one of the prisoners escaped and went outside the cave to experience the world for the first time.

Both literature and religion have mined the rich seams of metaphor and allegory they found in Plato's Cave.  The problem I have is: both tend to skip over the little matter of the removing of the shackles to move straight on to their depictions of their idealised worlds - whether that be Narnia, Heaven, Middle Earth or wherever else.  

That's cheating in my book.  When was the last time you stood on the bank of a river and then suddenly, without explanation, found yourself on the opposite bank?  

If the shackles turn out to be death then that is not a terribly useful solution.  If they turn out to be illusion, then you have to provide a mechanism by which that is removed.  No wardrobes allowed.

Time

Someone stopped me in the street.."D'you know what time is mate?" 

The structure of matter affects space-time so, in theory, as you approach the singularity of the big bang the curvature of space- time becomes infinite - so how can either exist before that point? But if the big bang turns out to be a recurring phenomenon and there were other big bangs prior to ours, what happens to the time that measures the time between one big bang and the next? Why should time not exist then?

Then, if the 'many worlds' theory of quantum mechanics is correct, (the Everett interpretation), then there may be multiple space times; so there may be no such thing as time itself, but merely spatial relationships between energy states occurring in quantum fields in multiple universes.

But space might not exist either!! What we ordinarily mean by space could turn out to be just changes in the relative position between things to which we've ascribed a separate identity for reasons such as that's just how we experience things. So, could time exist without events occuring on which to hang measuring instruments with which to measure its passing?

Wait...it's lunchtime!!

Dammit! Lunchtime is an illusion too..srsly.

Shumacher's thought experiment might be relevant.

Suppose you have a universe divided into regions A B and C. In region A time proceeds normally for ten years but it freezes during the eleventh. In region B time is normal for thirteen years then freezes for a year. In region C the same thing but on a seventeen year cycle. Region B and C will observe region A freeze and region C will observe regions A and B freeze in turn and then unfreeze. Every 2210yrs, or whatever it is, time will freeze in all three regions. But time still exists during this frozen time, right? Because after a year they all unfreeze again. Curious, no?