HuffPo stupidity of the day

September 27, 2016 • 4:42 pm

The debate last night wasn’t even over before HuffPo was falling all over itself with glee at Trump’s performance. That’s fine for a Democrat, but not so fine for a news site. And so, if you go to PuffHo right now, you’ll find this headline (click on screenshot to go to story):

screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-11-36-56-am

And talking about ad hominems, this one’s a doozy. I didn’t watch the debate, but heard that Trump sniffed a lot. That inspired this article:

screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-11-43-29-am

Yes, Robert Durst, not a convicted killer but an accused one, also sniffed! OMG! Now imagine if Hillary Clinton had had a cold and sniffed like Trump. Do you suppose PuffHo would put up a similar article?

The Trump-bashing and Hillary adulation go on and on on the main page of PuffHo. But, over on the religion pages, the endless celebration of genuine female oppression continues:

screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-11-41-08-am

 

What does it mean to be a hijabi and a fashionista?

September 27, 2016 • 1:30 pm

This all started when I saw this tw**t from Sarah Haider, co-founder of Ex-Muslims of North America:

. . . which referenced this Facebook post by Haute Hijab, a community of hijab-wearing fashionistas:

screen-shot-2016-09-26-at-7-56-10-pm

And what happened is shown in part below: Anniesa Hasibuan, a fashion designer who produces incredibly elaborate clothes for the hijab-wearer (see some of her designs here), had a fashion show in New York, and after the catwalk parade there was a standing ovation from a non-Muslim crowd:

 

This, of course, is something that would be—and probably has—been touted by PuffHo. Sarah was saying that the standing ovation was actually a celebration of women’s oppression—oppression in the form of the hijab, a scarf meant to cover the hair as a sign of women’s modesty dictated by some sects of Islam.

And at first I thought, “Maybe Sarah is being too harsh here. Maybe these women don’t wear the hijab to be modest, but simply (as Jews wear yarmulkes) to be “closer to God.”

But then I thought, “But Islamic scripture says that you’re closer to God not simply by wearing the headscarf, but because you’re covering the bits of yourself that could inflame men’s desires.” And if that’s the case, then we have not only hypocrisy—the combination of hair covering to enforce modesty combined with glitzy fashion designed to show yourself off (makeup, outline of the bosom, glamorous fabrics)—but Regressive Leftism, in the form of a liberal crowd applauding the women precisely because they’ve exercised this hypocrisy but kept their all-important hair under wraps.

And I think Sarah is right. Yes, women should certainly have a choice about whether to wear the headscarf, and I’m sure some of them do wear it by choice (though fewer than we think), and some do it not to obey religious custom, but to make a political statement. But even that political statement is deeply entangled with faith, for Islam is the most political of religions.

The fact is that there’s nothing in the Qur’an or hadith about covering the hair (see below), but there’s plenty about being modest (see here and here, for instance), and Islamic scripture is clear that women must be far more modest than men.  But there is no scriptural requirement to cover one’s hair, as noted in Wikipedia’s piece on “Intimate parts in Islam“:

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimār over their breasts and not display their beauty except to their husband, their fathers, their husband’s fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. (Quran24:31).

You’re supposed to cover your intimate parts, but not necessarily the hair. What has happened in some Islamic countries—and this is recent—is that the hijab worn over the head has been interpreted as necessary for modesty, even if not explicit in Islamic scripture. It’s the interpretation of that scripture that has changed, so that in the last 40 years in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Egypt, hijabs have become more and more common as a sign that a woman is a good Muslim. (Google image “Women Tehran 1970” and then put in “2015” to see the difference. Or substitute “Cairo” or “Kabul” for “Tehran.”)

For most hijabis, then (and I am guessing here from what I know), wearing the scarf is a religious signal, meant to show that you’re abiding by old Islamic dictates of female modesty and newer dictates on how the modesty is instantiated. But all of those dictates, new and old, were and are enforced by men; they’re part of the corrosive patriarchy that pervades Islam. If the hijab makes you feel “closer to God,” then it often does so by making you feel that you’re adhering more closely to an entire code of conduct designed to oppress and marginalize women.

So Sarah is right. Those hijabi fashionistas are simple hypocrites: they’re trying to obey the letter of Islam but violating the spirit. They’d immediately be whacked by the morality police if they appeared on the streets of Kabul in that garb! More important, they can’t have it both ways: hide your beauty under a headscarf in the name of modesty, but flaunt it below the neckline. Well, of course you can do that, as these women have, but let them flaunt their brand of modesty in Kabul or Saudi Arabia!

But what’s even worse is the New York crowd applauding this, not because the fashions are particularly spectacular, but because they’re topped with a hijab.

Yes, Sarah’s right: the crowd is applauding not the women or the designer, but themselves—their liberality, their open-mindedness, their show of support for what they see as an oppressed minority: Muslims. After all, Muslims are people of color. What the enthusiastic crowd doesn’t realize, though, is that it’s simultaneously applauding the oppression of women, symbolized by the very garment that elicited all this approbation.

h/t: Eiynah

The newest microaggression: Mispronouncing someone’s name

September 27, 2016 • 11:45 am

A reader sent me a link to reason.com, a right-wing libertarian website, describing the newest form of microaggression: mispronouncing someone’s name. (They, in turn, took most of their story from a CNS News report (also a conservative site) by Amy Furr. As you’ll see, the reader was dismayed to have to find this stuff on right-wing sites, but it’s simply not reported on Left-ish media sites, which ignore this kind of story for obvious reasons.

At any rate, Furr says this (my emphasis):

Hundreds of school districts across the country have taken a pledge to “pronounce student’s names correctly” to avoid the “microaggression” of mispronunciation.

According to ‘My Name, My Identity: A Declaration of Self,’ a national campaign launched in 2015 by the Santa Clara County, Calif. Office of Education (SCCOE) and the National Association for Bilingual Education, a teacher who mispronounces a student’s name can cause that student “anxiety and resentment”.

“Mispronouncing a student’s name truly negates his or her identity, which, in turn, can hinder academic progress,” according to Yee Wan, SCCOE’s director of multilingual education services.

Rita Kohli, assistant professor of education at the University of California at Riverside, says it is a sign of “microagression” when a teacher mispronounces, disregards, or changes a child’s name, because “they are in a sense disregarding the family and culture of the student as well.”

The Washoe County School District in Reno, Nevada is one of 528 school districts across the country that have recently implemented a campaign to “pronounce students’ names correctly” – including names teachers and administrators find difficult or unfamiliar – in order to be sensitive to the ancestral and historical significance of a child’s name.

Truly, a good teacher should make every effort to pronounce a student’s name properly, though it’s hard to do when you teach 100-200 students, as I often did in beginning evolution. There is simply no time to go around the class during the first session and have everyone say their name, so you have to learn names during either labs or office hours, and you can forget both names and pronounciations for a lot of students. But seriously, does it really “negate a student’s identity” to have their name pronounced incorrectly in a large class?

If that’s the case, then I was negated many, many times—and still am. My name is rarely pronounced correctly (like a “coin”), but more often as Cone-ee, Coin-ee, Cone, and all possible permutations. But of course I am a white male, and so there’s no chance of identity negation. (Nor did it ever both me, but of course I have Privilege: It’s okay to mispronounce my name.) The campaign is most likely aimed at minority students—not blacks, but perhaps Hispanics, Africans, or those from the Middle East, and, of course, Poland, where there are no vowels.

What is the evidence for psychological damage? The National Education Association cites a study showing that mispronounciation of names does this:

The effects can be long-lasting. In 2012, Kohli and Daniel Solorzano examined the issue in a study called “Teachers, Please Learn Our Names!: Racial Microagressions and the K-12 Classrooms.” They found that the failure to pronounce a name correctly impacts the world view and social emotional well-being of students, which, of course, is linked to learning.

What appears to be missing is evidence that, as Furr’s piece suggests, mispronounciation hinders academic progress itself.

Nevertheless, it’s a matter of simple civility to try to pronounce everybody’s name correctly, for it shows you are paying attention to them as a person, whether they be white, black, Asian, or Hispanic. Sometimes it’s harder to pronounce foreign names, so some slack should be allowed, and of course when I lived in France, working in academics, nobody pronounced my name properly.

But “microaggression”? No way—not unless you’re bigoted and boorish enough to call all Hispanic males “JosĂ©”.  To turn this into a political issue conflates incivility or difficulty with language with being a bigot or racist, inflating the ever-expanding sphere of the Offense Culture. As the reason.com piece, written by Lenore Skenazy, notes:

So far, 528 school districts have taken the pledge to try to get names right—which you’d think most teachers would do without a pledge.

But if they never quite get the accent right? Is that really a diss or simply the fact that with a melting pot like America, some names are going to be (am I microaggressing?) harder to pronounce? My family and I hosted an exchange student here for a year and I don’t think we ever pronounced “Giovanni” like an Italian. We said it with our American accents. This did not seem to stymie him in any way.

It’s interesting that the reader who sent me this link has a name I’d have trouble with, too, but it’s not a name associated with “oppressed people.” He also felt bad being allied with the Right on this issue:

Now, with my genetic and cultural heritage as a Scots-Irish-Anglo-German-Welsh-Cherokee-Jew and with my very Irish, very long last name, I have always had my name mispronounced, as has my son with his traditional, but quite common, Welsh-origin name  that gets mispronounced and misspelled, I had no idea I was supposed to be offended and to have felt abused, but then I’m sure this counts for us; we’re not “ethnic” enough to count as aggressed against, I suppose.
I’m sure getting sick of this Looney-Left regressive stupidity.  I’m also getting sick of finding myself siding with the Right.
I think that many of us, including me, don’t like agreeing with a fair amount of what we see on right-wing websites.

Here are the caimans

September 27, 2016 • 11:00 am

In this morning’s “Readers’ wildlife” series, Lou Jost had a “find the caiman” photo, in which, he said, there were a mother Spectacled Caiman and at least seven babies. Did you find them all? Here’s the reveal. (Click to enlarge: caimans are circled with olive-green ovals.)

reveal

Discuss: the Presidential debate

September 27, 2016 • 8:45 am

As I already knew who I was going to vote for, I didn’t see much sense in watching the Clinton/Trump debate last night. Though I’ll vote for Clinton as the far superior candidate, I don’t like either of them, and would have watched only to see what style the debaters assumed, and how many metatarsals Trump managed to insert into his mouth.

I did tune in for about 10 minutes near the beginning, only to see a raucous shouting match with the moderator, Lester Holt, either unwilling or unable to control the fracas. At that point I decided to read a book.

Judging from the emails I got last night, Clinton “won” the debate, but of course my friends are all Democrats. I scanned the front page of today’s New York Times and saw this editorial headline:

screen-shot-2016-09-27-at-6-18-39-am

So, as I’ll be downtown for the next few hours, I’ll leave it to readers to discuss the debate. Who did the better job? Did the moderator do his job? What were the biggest gaffes or “gotcha” moments? Have at it in the comments below, and I’ll be back by noon.

Readers’ wildlife photographs (and Spot the caimans!)

September 27, 2016 • 7:30 am

Reader Lou Jost sent me a multipart series of photographs from a recent trip he took to the Tambopata National Reserve in the Peruvian Amazon. This is the last set of photographs, but because I’m at home, leaving early to go downtown, this is the only one I have, so I’ll put it up today. It’s a series on caimans, which includes a “spot the caimans” photo. Lou’s text is indented:

Spot the caimans

“Spot the camians!”. There are eight caimans in this first picture—at least. A mother and seven babies. They are easy. I attach a “reveal” photo too [JAC: That will be up at 11 a.m. Chicago time].

At remote Amazonian sites, animals generally are not nervous around people. In the little lagoon shown here, almost everything went about its business right next to us as if we weren’t there (turtles were the exception, but even they didn’t stay hidden for long). A mother Spectacled Caiman (Caiman crocodilus) and her babies patrolled the pond and made cute croaking noises. I count seven babies in this photo, but there could be more.

_1080580

Some of the mother’s teeth have punctured the top of the snout and now protrude through it. They don’t start out that way; many photos on the internet don’t show any protruding teeth. For example see this Wikipedia photo.

Spectacled caiman mother with teeth protruding through its snout. Ouch!

_1080555

The Rufescent Tiger Heron (Tigrisoma lineatum) above the caimans initially assumed a bittern-like pose with its beak pointing to the sky, but it quickly gave up that charade and just sat there wistfully watching the caiman babies….

_1080384

We saw many caiman every day. Here’s one on the bank of the Rio Tambopata, a Spectacled Caiman:

_1070141

And here is some nice caiman food on the riverbank, a capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).

_1070183

Tuesday: Hili dialogue

September 27, 2016 • 6:30 am

Good morning on Tuesday (the cruelest day), September 27, 2016. Don’t forget that if you’re in that demographic bracket, you should be getting your flu shot soon, at least if you live in the Northern Hemisphere. Professor Ceiling Cat will be absent much of the morning, as he’s gong downtown to turn in his Chinese visa application (I’m going to the mainland for a few days while in Hong Kong) and to get his camera cleaned; ergo posting will be light till a bit later.

It’s National Chocolate Milk Day: the only way I’d drink milk as a kid. I wonder if any readers still partake of this delicious beverage. And, on this day in 1066 (surely the calendar is not accurate here), William the Conqueror set sail for England; the rest is history. On this day in 1777, Lancaster, Pennsylvania became the capital of the U.S. for one day as the Continental Congress fled Philadelphia before the oncoming British. On this day in Einstein’s “miracle year” of 1905, the journal Annalen der Physik received the paper in which Einstein introduced the equation E = mcÂČ.

Notables born on this day include Sam Ervin (1896), pianist Budd Powell (1924), Meat Loaf (1947), and the odious Gwyneth Paltrow (1972). Those who died on this day include Edgar Degas (1917), Aimee Semple McPherson (1944), Clara Bow (1965), and Donald O’Connor (2003). Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili’s table has been decorated, but she doesn’t like it a bit:

Hili: You devastated my table.
A: I have a dissenting opinion in this matter.
p1040885 In Polish:
Hili: ZdewastowaƂeƛ mój stóƂ.
Ja: Mam odrębne zdanie w tej kwestii.
Lagniappe: I discovered this by accident this morning at the Guinness Book of World Records site:

The world’s largest litter of domestic cats were born on the 7 August 1970 when a Burmese/Siamese cat [JAC: a Tonkinese] belonging to V. Gane of Kingham, Oxfordshire, UK, gave birth to 19 kittens, four of which were stillborn.

Average for this cat type is 4-6.

15 kittens and six nipples! What did they do?

Monday: HuffPo stupidity

September 26, 2016 • 2:32 pm

I can’t refrain from looking at PuffHo. I no longer derive anything useful from that dreadful aggregator site, but I look anyway:  the same way rubberneckers look at a traffic accident as they drive by. I’m fascinated by their obsession with hijabis, and by theircomplete abandonment of objective political reporting.

And so this week I’ll feature at least one dumb headline per day from the site. Actually, there are two today (click each screenshot to go to the article—if you must):

screen-shot-2016-09-26-at-2-20-45-pm

The life-giving illustrations below aren’t impressive:

screen-shot-2016-09-26-at-2-30-12-pm