Gina Harris's Blog, page 105
March 9, 2018
Band Review: Patent Pending
Back when I reviewed Science, somewhere among the web pages there was a link to Patent Pending. Because Science was so good, and because I had found a lot of music that I liked among bands from New Jersey and Long Island (which sometimes seems more New Jersey than York -- I could be wrong), I added Patent Pending to the review list.
This add happened at a time when I didn't get to recommended bands very often, so they were on the list for a few years with me meaning to get to them. Then they followed me on Twitter, which automatically put them on the regular review list, except should they get bumped up because I had been meaning to review them for so long? Then they unfollowed me really quickly, making that a "no" (because I can be petty sometimes). Nonetheless it is finally time to review Patent Pending!
Let me give just a little more context. Back when they followed me, I believe it was at a time that I was writing a lot about emo and doing daily songs from emo bands. I believe that led to the follow, because it happened at the same time that Dustin Phillips of The Ataris followed me. I mention that because - while the band identifies simply as punk - what I like and dislike about Patent Pending feels like it fits within my understanding of emo.
I want to give credit where credit is due. Sometimes emo is associated with a poor level of playing skill, and I am absolutely not saying that about Patent Pending. They play well, and they are pretty catchy, and there is nothing wrong with their musicianship.
It's just the immaturity that gets to me.
It especially gets to me because so much of it is going in a misogynistic direction.
I don't necessarily think it's sincere either. The band members seem pretty likable and concerned with their fans, and when they have songs that are a little more serious the sincerity there feels different. Still, I recently read a quote by Kurt Vonnegut: "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." So even if you are only pretending to be the insecure losers picked on by douchebags and rejected by plastic girls, that is still ultimately what you are putting out there.
The band is proud of holding onto their DIY ethic, which I respect. There is a lot of value in reducing environmental impact, avoiding materialism, and learning how to do different things. If it becomes a rejection of other people, though, and a reason for looking down on them, that's less valuable. It's also something that it would be reasonable to grow out of at some point.
The quick version of that is that I have been wanting and intending to like Patent Pending for a long time, but I can't quite do it, even while understanding why they would appeal to others.
http://patentpendingmusic.com/
https://www.facebook.com/patentpendingmusic/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYYrdRso8ZaQhxke1vnfJmw
https://twitter.com/PTPGOfficial
This add happened at a time when I didn't get to recommended bands very often, so they were on the list for a few years with me meaning to get to them. Then they followed me on Twitter, which automatically put them on the regular review list, except should they get bumped up because I had been meaning to review them for so long? Then they unfollowed me really quickly, making that a "no" (because I can be petty sometimes). Nonetheless it is finally time to review Patent Pending!
Let me give just a little more context. Back when they followed me, I believe it was at a time that I was writing a lot about emo and doing daily songs from emo bands. I believe that led to the follow, because it happened at the same time that Dustin Phillips of The Ataris followed me. I mention that because - while the band identifies simply as punk - what I like and dislike about Patent Pending feels like it fits within my understanding of emo.
I want to give credit where credit is due. Sometimes emo is associated with a poor level of playing skill, and I am absolutely not saying that about Patent Pending. They play well, and they are pretty catchy, and there is nothing wrong with their musicianship.
It's just the immaturity that gets to me.
It especially gets to me because so much of it is going in a misogynistic direction.
I don't necessarily think it's sincere either. The band members seem pretty likable and concerned with their fans, and when they have songs that are a little more serious the sincerity there feels different. Still, I recently read a quote by Kurt Vonnegut: "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." So even if you are only pretending to be the insecure losers picked on by douchebags and rejected by plastic girls, that is still ultimately what you are putting out there.
The band is proud of holding onto their DIY ethic, which I respect. There is a lot of value in reducing environmental impact, avoiding materialism, and learning how to do different things. If it becomes a rejection of other people, though, and a reason for looking down on them, that's less valuable. It's also something that it would be reasonable to grow out of at some point.
The quick version of that is that I have been wanting and intending to like Patent Pending for a long time, but I can't quite do it, even while understanding why they would appeal to others.
http://patentpendingmusic.com/
https://www.facebook.com/patentpendingmusic/
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYYrdRso8ZaQhxke1vnfJmw
https://twitter.com/PTPGOfficial
March 8, 2018
Band Review: L.B.One and SkighMiles
I am combining two separate artists today due to them not having very much content available, though for different reasons.
L.B.One
L.B.One is a DJ, so it is reasonable to assume that he does sets regularly that involve musical skill and know-how, but that are part of experiences. Even if there were sets captured online, the recordings would not properly convey the effectiveness of the the show.
He does have two tracks recorded, both with the help of vocalist Laenz.
From a performance level they are musically pretty solid, though there is a darkness to the predatory theme of the videos that I found pointless. I can't rule out that they would be more meaningful to younger people though, being several years past cool, but it's almost like they were adding a trap eeriness that was thankfully absent in the music.
https://happymusic.lnk.to/LBOneTiredBones
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCprhX_G7Ksas92zvcOKObEA
https://twitter.com/DJLBONE
SkighMiles
SkighMiles is a producer, who has previously focused on working with other musicians but is now ready to perform as himself, which I think is nice.
It may be that his interaction with other artists inspired his current track, famous, which seemed overly shallow and weed-obsessed, with somewhat repetitive lyrics. The sound is on point though, which makes sense, and this is a first attempt. He should have time to grow and to find more to say.
https://www.indiesound.com/index.php?a=profile&u=skighmiles2016
https://twitter.com/Skighmiles2016
L.B.One
L.B.One is a DJ, so it is reasonable to assume that he does sets regularly that involve musical skill and know-how, but that are part of experiences. Even if there were sets captured online, the recordings would not properly convey the effectiveness of the the show.
He does have two tracks recorded, both with the help of vocalist Laenz.
From a performance level they are musically pretty solid, though there is a darkness to the predatory theme of the videos that I found pointless. I can't rule out that they would be more meaningful to younger people though, being several years past cool, but it's almost like they were adding a trap eeriness that was thankfully absent in the music.
https://happymusic.lnk.to/LBOneTiredBones
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCprhX_G7Ksas92zvcOKObEA
https://twitter.com/DJLBONE
SkighMiles
SkighMiles is a producer, who has previously focused on working with other musicians but is now ready to perform as himself, which I think is nice.
It may be that his interaction with other artists inspired his current track, famous, which seemed overly shallow and weed-obsessed, with somewhat repetitive lyrics. The sound is on point though, which makes sense, and this is a first attempt. He should have time to grow and to find more to say.
https://www.indiesound.com/index.php?a=profile&u=skighmiles2016
https://twitter.com/Skighmiles2016
March 7, 2018
On school shootings, gender roles
The video in question was posted by Matt Kibbe, but it was actually Warren Farrell speaking. Just a cursory look at him shows some poor thinking on gender roles, but I am still kind of appalled by the outright lie and the certainty with which it is presented. I will therefore not link to the video, because it has already gotten too much attention.
My first reaction was being taken aback by the wrong information, but after that I noticed something in the phrasing. Boys being deprived often starts with divorce, but then there is that number of women under 30 who are choosing to raise children without the involvement of fathers. That thread also had a comment about how mothers always want to nurture their kids and can't discipline. A different but related thread had a comment about how there was no such thing as toxic masculinity, at least not before feminism started damaging men.
Let me just say that there is enough to unpack there that I am not going to get it all in this post. That's okay; I have blogging material for months.
My second reaction to all of this was that even though the theoretical problem is being stated as the lack of fathers - with an appeal to rise to the occasion and be caring and attentive fathers - there is just a whiff there of blaming the women.
It reminded me of back when most problems were ascribed to refrigerator mothers, and any that weren't were because the mothers were smothering. The convenient thing there is that the incorrect mothering behaviors were exact opposites, where achieving the proper balance would be practically impossible, therefore you are safe in assuming it is the mother's fault. Mothers and motherhood were reverenced in general, but any specific problems were her fault.
(I guess that was a pretty sweet position for men, so any displacement of that by feminism could feel really damaging, though it's odd that people who believe that are so quick to label others snowflakes.)
This current whiff of single mother shaming stuck out more because I had recently read something about the blame that gets ascribed to single mothers on government programs with a reminder on how often those single mothers were underage and preyed on by older men who then abandoned the child and the mother. There are women who consciously decide not to postpone motherhood due to a lack of a partner, but that is not the only thing happening.
For those women, they should think carefully about having adequate support for their children and themselves - financial and emotional - but that actually leads to where I recognized another lie. Call that my third reaction.
Children of homosexual parents, including sons of lesbian mothers, often do very well. Sometimes they appear to be doing better than their peers born into heterosexual couples.
I know, a lot of people are going to want to reject that result for moral reasons. Remember, though, the greater point of this set of posts, in that we want to look at facts and make decisions based on them. Why might one get results like that? (Beyond liberal bias determined to disrupt all that is holy and good.)
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that in the LGBTQIA community, there are far fewer unplanned pregnancies than those experienced by heterosexuals. Is it possible that deciding that you want a child and going over what is needed and how to make that happen could result in a more stable home? Could that be a good thing?
Now, let's build on that. If planned parenthood is better, are there ways that we can help make that more common? For example, would it help to make sex education and birth control readily available?
Sometimes it is easy to get cause and effect reversed. Two opposite-sex parents with good values might raise wonderful children, but if there is economic stress it is harder to hold that family together. If you want to support that family model, shouldn't you support family-wage jobs? (Instead of believing that both parents holding multiple jobs is fine Mitt Romney.) If parental involvement is important, a world where parents can support their children without working eighty hours a week seems important.
I believe that a loving and supportive father can do a lot of good. I also know an abusive father can inflict a lot of damage. Should the mother stay in an abusive situation to prevent an absent father? Because sometimes mothers get jailed for not leaving and stopping the abuse, regardless of the amount of abuse the mother absorbed herself.
And of course, if she does leave and becomes a single mother working 80 hour weeks just to keep them alive, is the problem that the father isn't there, or is it that we don't have a society that supports people?
I get irritated when people say wrong stuff and stupid stuff, but there are worse effects than irritation. There are policies that leave people lonely and desperate and dead. Please let's be better than that.
It can start with less worry about "family values" and more emphasis on valuing families of all kinds, and individuals of all kinds.
Look, if you are coming to your family values from a Christian point of view, the answer is always going to be love. Not judgment, or amassing wealth, but love.
I've checked.
My first reaction was being taken aback by the wrong information, but after that I noticed something in the phrasing. Boys being deprived often starts with divorce, but then there is that number of women under 30 who are choosing to raise children without the involvement of fathers. That thread also had a comment about how mothers always want to nurture their kids and can't discipline. A different but related thread had a comment about how there was no such thing as toxic masculinity, at least not before feminism started damaging men.
Let me just say that there is enough to unpack there that I am not going to get it all in this post. That's okay; I have blogging material for months.
My second reaction to all of this was that even though the theoretical problem is being stated as the lack of fathers - with an appeal to rise to the occasion and be caring and attentive fathers - there is just a whiff there of blaming the women.
It reminded me of back when most problems were ascribed to refrigerator mothers, and any that weren't were because the mothers were smothering. The convenient thing there is that the incorrect mothering behaviors were exact opposites, where achieving the proper balance would be practically impossible, therefore you are safe in assuming it is the mother's fault. Mothers and motherhood were reverenced in general, but any specific problems were her fault.
(I guess that was a pretty sweet position for men, so any displacement of that by feminism could feel really damaging, though it's odd that people who believe that are so quick to label others snowflakes.)
This current whiff of single mother shaming stuck out more because I had recently read something about the blame that gets ascribed to single mothers on government programs with a reminder on how often those single mothers were underage and preyed on by older men who then abandoned the child and the mother. There are women who consciously decide not to postpone motherhood due to a lack of a partner, but that is not the only thing happening.
For those women, they should think carefully about having adequate support for their children and themselves - financial and emotional - but that actually leads to where I recognized another lie. Call that my third reaction.
Children of homosexual parents, including sons of lesbian mothers, often do very well. Sometimes they appear to be doing better than their peers born into heterosexual couples.
I know, a lot of people are going to want to reject that result for moral reasons. Remember, though, the greater point of this set of posts, in that we want to look at facts and make decisions based on them. Why might one get results like that? (Beyond liberal bias determined to disrupt all that is holy and good.)
I am going to go out on a limb and guess that in the LGBTQIA community, there are far fewer unplanned pregnancies than those experienced by heterosexuals. Is it possible that deciding that you want a child and going over what is needed and how to make that happen could result in a more stable home? Could that be a good thing?
Now, let's build on that. If planned parenthood is better, are there ways that we can help make that more common? For example, would it help to make sex education and birth control readily available?
Sometimes it is easy to get cause and effect reversed. Two opposite-sex parents with good values might raise wonderful children, but if there is economic stress it is harder to hold that family together. If you want to support that family model, shouldn't you support family-wage jobs? (Instead of believing that both parents holding multiple jobs is fine Mitt Romney.) If parental involvement is important, a world where parents can support their children without working eighty hours a week seems important.
I believe that a loving and supportive father can do a lot of good. I also know an abusive father can inflict a lot of damage. Should the mother stay in an abusive situation to prevent an absent father? Because sometimes mothers get jailed for not leaving and stopping the abuse, regardless of the amount of abuse the mother absorbed herself.
And of course, if she does leave and becomes a single mother working 80 hour weeks just to keep them alive, is the problem that the father isn't there, or is it that we don't have a society that supports people?
I get irritated when people say wrong stuff and stupid stuff, but there are worse effects than irritation. There are policies that leave people lonely and desperate and dead. Please let's be better than that.
It can start with less worry about "family values" and more emphasis on valuing families of all kinds, and individuals of all kinds.
Look, if you are coming to your family values from a Christian point of view, the answer is always going to be love. Not judgment, or amassing wealth, but love.
I've checked.
March 6, 2018
On school shootings, studying
I am going to write the five common factors in school shootings from the book. It feels like cheating, because I had written them up with my notes in my Goodreads review from when I read the book in October 2016, then recently on Facebook. Still, going over them again could be helpful.
Before that, though, I want to reiterate that the authors - Katherine S. Newman, Cybelle Fox, David Harding, Jal Mehta, and Wendy Roth - did exhaustive research. They interviewed people who went to schools where there were shootings, people who had contact with the shooters after they were detained, teachers, students, family, community members, and the shooters when possible. They searched archives going back for decades. They gathered as much information as they could and then put it together, giving each other feedback. They did that, and they knew there were limitations to what they could know, but they put in a huge effort.
It sounds logical that the results of their efforts should be more reliable than the opinion of someone who picking facts that support their pre-existing agenda. That sounds logical, but we need to remember that when the conversation is about guns, many people have specifically rejected research. This includes taking away the Center for Disease Control's funding for studying gun violence in 1996, and continuing to renew the ban. Even Jay Dickey, who led the charge, decided it was wrong before he died, but the amendment stands. There is opposition to study:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/?utm_term=.cd92513edc66
There are also many prohibitions on keeping data on existing gun sales, making tracing guns used in crimes much harder than television would have you believe:
https://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns
Suggestions are constantly criticized as showing that those making the suggestions know nothing about guns, but if ignorance is a bad source for deciding policy, we should not be enforcing ignorance.
I point this out because as much as we do need more knowledge, we may need to end opposition to gathering and using knowledge even more.
(And, if the argument is that the weapon on its own isn't that deadly without modifications like a bump stock, and you still resist controls on bump stocks, at some point we have to question sincerity, but I'm not going to focus on that right now.)
Okay, so what did the authors of Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings conclude?
1. The first necessary factor is the shooter's perception of himself as extremely marginal in the social worlds that matter to him.
This is interesting because often when we talk about marginalization, we are referring to minorities, but the bulk of the shooters are white and male and straight, and should be the opposite of marginalized. However, it's the social group that matters. (How you relate to society as a whpole affects different things.) Yes, some of the shooters were picked on at times, but they also picked on other kids. Generally the shooters have friends, they may date, but they don't feel valued enough by their group, and that will often come down to whether they can be tough enough and cool enough.
2. Second, school shooters must suffer from psychosocial problems that magnify the impact of marginality.
There was really only one who seemed to be on the verge of developing a true mental illness from the case studies I have read. There can be other things that damage perception, and make things look worse.
3. Cultural scripts -- prescriptions for behavior -- must be available to lead the way for an armed attack.
There was a time when seeing the wrong movie or playing the wrong video game could make that worse, but at this point there is no way for a child to not know that mass shootings are a possibility; they have become too common. We can hope that if we can change the way they are perceived, so that they don't look like a way of showing everyone and dominating others, but we can't undo the knowledge. Perhaps some of the demonstrations that teens are participating in now are the best examples of empowerment that is not harmful to others.
4. The fourth necessary factor is a failure of surveillance systems that are intended to identify troubled teens before their problems become extreme.
If there is an upside to teens knowing about the risk of school shootings, it may be that teens are much more willing to report on potential shooters now, and prioritize that over the stigma of snitching. We are all able to conceive the worst after multiple times of seeing it happen, and we take it more seriously. However, it is even better if we see that someone is down, or feels worthless, or needs help before they start thinking about harming others. Are we on the ball there?
5. Finally, we come to gun availability.
Most of these notes are pretty different from my review (I'll link to it at the bottom). That's not that I have changed my mind, but I have new, additional thoughts now. Tthis one is the same: the Jonesboro shooters tried to take guns from their parents first, but the guns were locked up and they couldn't get in. Then at the grandparents' house the guns were only secured with a cable that they were able to cut. Yes, they were determined enough to go to more than one house, but I don't think they would have kept going indefinitely. Lives could have been saved.
We talk about shootings with the same fatalism where we talk about suicides - if they are determined you can't stop them. That is a lie. People get dissuaded from attempts all the time, and it leads to life.
That's worth fighting for.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/965050903?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1
Before that, though, I want to reiterate that the authors - Katherine S. Newman, Cybelle Fox, David Harding, Jal Mehta, and Wendy Roth - did exhaustive research. They interviewed people who went to schools where there were shootings, people who had contact with the shooters after they were detained, teachers, students, family, community members, and the shooters when possible. They searched archives going back for decades. They gathered as much information as they could and then put it together, giving each other feedback. They did that, and they knew there were limitations to what they could know, but they put in a huge effort.
It sounds logical that the results of their efforts should be more reliable than the opinion of someone who picking facts that support their pre-existing agenda. That sounds logical, but we need to remember that when the conversation is about guns, many people have specifically rejected research. This includes taking away the Center for Disease Control's funding for studying gun violence in 1996, and continuing to renew the ban. Even Jay Dickey, who led the charge, decided it was wrong before he died, but the amendment stands. There is opposition to study:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/04/gun-violence-research-has-been-shut-down-for-20-years/?utm_term=.cd92513edc66
There are also many prohibitions on keeping data on existing gun sales, making tracing guns used in crimes much harder than television would have you believe:
https://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns
Suggestions are constantly criticized as showing that those making the suggestions know nothing about guns, but if ignorance is a bad source for deciding policy, we should not be enforcing ignorance.
I point this out because as much as we do need more knowledge, we may need to end opposition to gathering and using knowledge even more.
(And, if the argument is that the weapon on its own isn't that deadly without modifications like a bump stock, and you still resist controls on bump stocks, at some point we have to question sincerity, but I'm not going to focus on that right now.)
Okay, so what did the authors of Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings conclude?
1. The first necessary factor is the shooter's perception of himself as extremely marginal in the social worlds that matter to him.
This is interesting because often when we talk about marginalization, we are referring to minorities, but the bulk of the shooters are white and male and straight, and should be the opposite of marginalized. However, it's the social group that matters. (How you relate to society as a whpole affects different things.) Yes, some of the shooters were picked on at times, but they also picked on other kids. Generally the shooters have friends, they may date, but they don't feel valued enough by their group, and that will often come down to whether they can be tough enough and cool enough.
2. Second, school shooters must suffer from psychosocial problems that magnify the impact of marginality.
There was really only one who seemed to be on the verge of developing a true mental illness from the case studies I have read. There can be other things that damage perception, and make things look worse.
3. Cultural scripts -- prescriptions for behavior -- must be available to lead the way for an armed attack.
There was a time when seeing the wrong movie or playing the wrong video game could make that worse, but at this point there is no way for a child to not know that mass shootings are a possibility; they have become too common. We can hope that if we can change the way they are perceived, so that they don't look like a way of showing everyone and dominating others, but we can't undo the knowledge. Perhaps some of the demonstrations that teens are participating in now are the best examples of empowerment that is not harmful to others.
4. The fourth necessary factor is a failure of surveillance systems that are intended to identify troubled teens before their problems become extreme.
If there is an upside to teens knowing about the risk of school shootings, it may be that teens are much more willing to report on potential shooters now, and prioritize that over the stigma of snitching. We are all able to conceive the worst after multiple times of seeing it happen, and we take it more seriously. However, it is even better if we see that someone is down, or feels worthless, or needs help before they start thinking about harming others. Are we on the ball there?
5. Finally, we come to gun availability.
Most of these notes are pretty different from my review (I'll link to it at the bottom). That's not that I have changed my mind, but I have new, additional thoughts now. Tthis one is the same: the Jonesboro shooters tried to take guns from their parents first, but the guns were locked up and they couldn't get in. Then at the grandparents' house the guns were only secured with a cable that they were able to cut. Yes, they were determined enough to go to more than one house, but I don't think they would have kept going indefinitely. Lives could have been saved.
We talk about shootings with the same fatalism where we talk about suicides - if they are determined you can't stop them. That is a lie. People get dissuaded from attempts all the time, and it leads to life.
That's worth fighting for.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/965050903?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1
March 5, 2018
On school shootings, part 1
Okay, I am going to write about guns a little, except it's not really guns. It's not even really so much school shootings as it is about perception and communication.
I should back up.
In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting there have been many discussions going around, and there are many comments I could make. One stood out, both because I saw multiple references to it in a fairly short period of time, and also because I knew it was false.
The statement was that the common factor in these shootings is fatherless boys. That's not true. For some of the shooters, okay, but among the various common factors that is not even a high-ranking one.
I wrote a fairly long Facebook post with some detailed comments, but if something feels important to say, I guess I just don't feel right until it is up on the blog.
I want to start with how ideas get out there. Apparently Rick Santorum has put forward the missing father thing, but I think a video from Matt Kibbe (noted libertarian and co-writer of the Tea Party manifesto) has had more of an impact.
In that video Kibbe names four shooters who were not living with their fathers (though this does not necessarily mean that they had no contact with their fathers). However, without even trying hard I can give you five more who lived in two-parent homes and one who lived exclusively with his father.
There is some coincidence in that. I remember the Thurston high school shooter (I am not going to give names even when I know them, to avoid giving fame to them) because I went to college near Thurston, and although they were far away from where I went to high school, one team did encounter them once during playoffs. It felt close, like I knew that even though I didn't know anyone who was there, I knew people who knew people who were there. The details of that stick out pretty well. He lived with both parents and he killed them both before he went and shot up the school.
Proximity (and some common religious ties) also made the Reynolds High School shooting stand out, and he only lived with his father.
So much for coincidence; the rest was deliberate learning. When I was working on the Long Reading List, trying to be a better resource for teens, I read Dave Cullen's Columbine. That told me about two more shooters. In addition, the notes led me to another book, Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings.
Rampage had five authors, because it was the result of an investigative committee. The focused specifically on the shootings in Jonesboro and Paducah, but there was an exhaustive study of the data on many other shootings with all of the factors tallied and put in tables.
That let me know the family background of three more shooters. There was a lot more information in there, and a lot of it was more pertinent to a school shooting discussion. It was still helpful for me to immediately recognize a false statement.
The false statement resonates emotionally: Of course! Broken families! It makes so much sense!
In this case it is not just that the statement is false, but also that it is built upon false assumptions about fathers and families. Giving into that won't get us anywhere. Engaging in critical thinking might.
It could also lead to hedging, like "Maybe the fathers were there but were emotionally distant." People will cling to false statements that feel right and support their worldview.
Some stereotypes came up that are pretty important and we will get to them, but here's the other thing about reading a book: Rampage listed five common factors that were always present in some form. Granted, it's from 2005 so things could have shifted during the past decade. I admit that.
Still, doesn't it make sense to at least see what the people who studied really hard came up with, versus the people who make assumptions based on a few select observations and an outdated understanding of how the world is supposed to work?
Well, if you have been taught to be suspicious of intellectuals, perhaps not, but I like reading, and that's where I'm going next.
I should back up.
In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting there have been many discussions going around, and there are many comments I could make. One stood out, both because I saw multiple references to it in a fairly short period of time, and also because I knew it was false.
The statement was that the common factor in these shootings is fatherless boys. That's not true. For some of the shooters, okay, but among the various common factors that is not even a high-ranking one.
I wrote a fairly long Facebook post with some detailed comments, but if something feels important to say, I guess I just don't feel right until it is up on the blog.
I want to start with how ideas get out there. Apparently Rick Santorum has put forward the missing father thing, but I think a video from Matt Kibbe (noted libertarian and co-writer of the Tea Party manifesto) has had more of an impact.
In that video Kibbe names four shooters who were not living with their fathers (though this does not necessarily mean that they had no contact with their fathers). However, without even trying hard I can give you five more who lived in two-parent homes and one who lived exclusively with his father.
There is some coincidence in that. I remember the Thurston high school shooter (I am not going to give names even when I know them, to avoid giving fame to them) because I went to college near Thurston, and although they were far away from where I went to high school, one team did encounter them once during playoffs. It felt close, like I knew that even though I didn't know anyone who was there, I knew people who knew people who were there. The details of that stick out pretty well. He lived with both parents and he killed them both before he went and shot up the school.
Proximity (and some common religious ties) also made the Reynolds High School shooting stand out, and he only lived with his father.
So much for coincidence; the rest was deliberate learning. When I was working on the Long Reading List, trying to be a better resource for teens, I read Dave Cullen's Columbine. That told me about two more shooters. In addition, the notes led me to another book, Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings.
Rampage had five authors, because it was the result of an investigative committee. The focused specifically on the shootings in Jonesboro and Paducah, but there was an exhaustive study of the data on many other shootings with all of the factors tallied and put in tables.
That let me know the family background of three more shooters. There was a lot more information in there, and a lot of it was more pertinent to a school shooting discussion. It was still helpful for me to immediately recognize a false statement.
The false statement resonates emotionally: Of course! Broken families! It makes so much sense!
In this case it is not just that the statement is false, but also that it is built upon false assumptions about fathers and families. Giving into that won't get us anywhere. Engaging in critical thinking might.
It could also lead to hedging, like "Maybe the fathers were there but were emotionally distant." People will cling to false statements that feel right and support their worldview.
Some stereotypes came up that are pretty important and we will get to them, but here's the other thing about reading a book: Rampage listed five common factors that were always present in some form. Granted, it's from 2005 so things could have shifted during the past decade. I admit that.
Still, doesn't it make sense to at least see what the people who studied really hard came up with, versus the people who make assumptions based on a few select observations and an outdated understanding of how the world is supposed to work?
Well, if you have been taught to be suspicious of intellectuals, perhaps not, but I like reading, and that's where I'm going next.
March 2, 2018
Band Review: Lost In A Name
The intro to Lost In A Name's "Avert the Apathy" reminds me of Metallica. There is an aggression to the opening guitars and drums, and it makes me think of the hardest metal.
That's not what this song or this band is. The voices are not as aggressive as James Hetfield, and many of the song titles (like "Get Off My Hoverboard!") indicate that they don't take themselves nearly as seriously.
Personally, I find that a good thing, as I am not usually angry enough for metal. (I am only well-versed in metal because apparently I am related to angry people.) However, I like that Lost In A Name can play it that way. I like that they can border metal with their rock and pick out some of the good parts for their own use.
They really manage to get a good hard edge in their songs. It's impressive that they do it with only two people. Maybe a guitar and a drum kit is all you need, but it's a surprisingly strong sound for a duo.
Pretty enjoyable.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZPcFWw53FKxWlq7VGTVE4A
That's not what this song or this band is. The voices are not as aggressive as James Hetfield, and many of the song titles (like "Get Off My Hoverboard!") indicate that they don't take themselves nearly as seriously.
Personally, I find that a good thing, as I am not usually angry enough for metal. (I am only well-versed in metal because apparently I am related to angry people.) However, I like that Lost In A Name can play it that way. I like that they can border metal with their rock and pick out some of the good parts for their own use.
They really manage to get a good hard edge in their songs. It's impressive that they do it with only two people. Maybe a guitar and a drum kit is all you need, but it's a surprisingly strong sound for a duo.
Pretty enjoyable.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZPcFWw53FKxWlq7VGTVE4A
March 1, 2018
Band Review: Rock N' Roll Circus
Rock N' Roll Circus is a rock band based out of Seattle and Vancouver BC.
They indicate an interest in roots music, and it is easy to hear the blues influence. Honestly, despite no evidence of there being a piano (there is mandolin) it sometimes feels like you can hear a juke joint piano in the background; it is that kind of sound.
The music is generally enjoyable, though the songs do kind of blend together. Exceptions are "Back It Up" which gets a little slower and more emotional, but "Bad Time to Call" is a good starting point for the general mood.
Rock N' Roll Circus plays tomorrow night as the Heritage Grill in New Westminster (Canada).
http://www.rocknrollcircus.ca/
https://www.facebook.com/rnrcircus604
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/rock-n-roll-circus/957184299
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGjqq8WCoDu8B8wvunteRag
https://twitter.com/RNRCircus604
They indicate an interest in roots music, and it is easy to hear the blues influence. Honestly, despite no evidence of there being a piano (there is mandolin) it sometimes feels like you can hear a juke joint piano in the background; it is that kind of sound.
The music is generally enjoyable, though the songs do kind of blend together. Exceptions are "Back It Up" which gets a little slower and more emotional, but "Bad Time to Call" is a good starting point for the general mood.
Rock N' Roll Circus plays tomorrow night as the Heritage Grill in New Westminster (Canada).
http://www.rocknrollcircus.ca/
https://www.facebook.com/rnrcircus604
https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/rock-n-roll-circus/957184299
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGjqq8WCoDu8B8wvunteRag
https://twitter.com/RNRCircus604
February 28, 2018
Wrapping up tidbits
I am finding myself really tempted to write about guns today, but that doesn't seem like the best idea.
I can't rule out that I will hold off on switching to misogyny and spend some time on guns next week. But hey, if racism and colonialism fit in well with misogyny and patriarchy, there's certainly room for guns in all of that discussion too.
Instead, I have a couple of minor points, and I don't know that either of them needed a whole blog post, so I'll mash them together today.
First off, in terms of listening to the person you owe an apology (and in conjunction with yesterday's musings on human nature), this has come up in my own family dynamics. I will have a complaint, and maybe I am not calm enough, but all I get in response is how wrong and unreasonable and stupid I am. Then, the next day or so, the other party will tell me what they will be doing differently.
One thing that is unsatisfactory about this is that the action they choose is often not what the key issue was anyway. It has the added bonus of leaving me feeling unheard. I mean, clearly something was heard if they are trying to make a change, and it is better than being completely ignored, but it would mean a lot to hear that I have a point. It might be easier to discuss things rationally when your worth isn't consistently being called into question.
One thing I remember really well from recently, though, is that I needed time to figure out what would help and I wasn't given that. Listening doesn't just involve asking the question, but asking it sincerely, and that needs to mean allowing careful consideration. If someone knows right away, that's great, but when we are talking about groups that have been historically marginalized and abused, there are many reasons why they might not have a response ready. It doesn't mean that they won't be able to come up with one, and that giving them that agency isn't a part of the solution.
The other thing that I should mention is that I am currently kind of in over my head on online classes. It's getting better now, but when I signed up for the Indigenous Canada class, I already had five music classes going on, and then before I finished Aboriginal Worldview and Education I signed up for another four classes related to Roman art, architecture, and archeology because I couldn't choose between them. On the plus side, they reinforce each other, but it has been hectic trying to keep up.
Other than just letting you know something that is going on in my life, I also mention that because of something from back when I was reading The Feminine Mystique. It mentioned things being set up for housewives like lectures on classical architecture (yes, my classes covered the three main types of columns, as well as composite and things that came later) and how it left them unsatisfied.
I thought that kind of lecture sounded great, and yes, given the opportunity I did find it really interesting, but that can happen because my life isn't empty.
Filling an empty life with fluff still leaves it empty. Those women needed things to do and ways to matter, not just methods to fill up empty hours. (Empty hours sound like a treat to me, but that's because I have so many things that could go into them.)
At the same time, there were many women who never experienced the problem with no name because they were working hard to support their families. They didn't have to deal with emptiness, but they might have worries about being bone-tired, or how both incomes were not enough, or all manner of things. Often, for people in that financial class we don't even think that they would appreciate a lecture on classical architecture, but they might. People from everywhere have all kinds of interests, and it's nice to be able to indulge them.
This is my messy way of leading up to saying that people need both. They need to feel like they are doing something that matters, and that they are relevant and capable. They also need diversion, where it's okay to know something that you don't need, but that you enjoy. There should be a balance there. Economic inequality and gender roles and racial constructions can get in the way of all that, but everyone has something to contribute, and will be happier for getting to contribute it. Everyone deserves to have some fun, and will be better off for having that fun.
It shouldn't be too much to ask.
I can't rule out that I will hold off on switching to misogyny and spend some time on guns next week. But hey, if racism and colonialism fit in well with misogyny and patriarchy, there's certainly room for guns in all of that discussion too.
Instead, I have a couple of minor points, and I don't know that either of them needed a whole blog post, so I'll mash them together today.
First off, in terms of listening to the person you owe an apology (and in conjunction with yesterday's musings on human nature), this has come up in my own family dynamics. I will have a complaint, and maybe I am not calm enough, but all I get in response is how wrong and unreasonable and stupid I am. Then, the next day or so, the other party will tell me what they will be doing differently.
One thing that is unsatisfactory about this is that the action they choose is often not what the key issue was anyway. It has the added bonus of leaving me feeling unheard. I mean, clearly something was heard if they are trying to make a change, and it is better than being completely ignored, but it would mean a lot to hear that I have a point. It might be easier to discuss things rationally when your worth isn't consistently being called into question.
One thing I remember really well from recently, though, is that I needed time to figure out what would help and I wasn't given that. Listening doesn't just involve asking the question, but asking it sincerely, and that needs to mean allowing careful consideration. If someone knows right away, that's great, but when we are talking about groups that have been historically marginalized and abused, there are many reasons why they might not have a response ready. It doesn't mean that they won't be able to come up with one, and that giving them that agency isn't a part of the solution.
The other thing that I should mention is that I am currently kind of in over my head on online classes. It's getting better now, but when I signed up for the Indigenous Canada class, I already had five music classes going on, and then before I finished Aboriginal Worldview and Education I signed up for another four classes related to Roman art, architecture, and archeology because I couldn't choose between them. On the plus side, they reinforce each other, but it has been hectic trying to keep up.
Other than just letting you know something that is going on in my life, I also mention that because of something from back when I was reading The Feminine Mystique. It mentioned things being set up for housewives like lectures on classical architecture (yes, my classes covered the three main types of columns, as well as composite and things that came later) and how it left them unsatisfied.
I thought that kind of lecture sounded great, and yes, given the opportunity I did find it really interesting, but that can happen because my life isn't empty.
Filling an empty life with fluff still leaves it empty. Those women needed things to do and ways to matter, not just methods to fill up empty hours. (Empty hours sound like a treat to me, but that's because I have so many things that could go into them.)
At the same time, there were many women who never experienced the problem with no name because they were working hard to support their families. They didn't have to deal with emptiness, but they might have worries about being bone-tired, or how both incomes were not enough, or all manner of things. Often, for people in that financial class we don't even think that they would appreciate a lecture on classical architecture, but they might. People from everywhere have all kinds of interests, and it's nice to be able to indulge them.
This is my messy way of leading up to saying that people need both. They need to feel like they are doing something that matters, and that they are relevant and capable. They also need diversion, where it's okay to know something that you don't need, but that you enjoy. There should be a balance there. Economic inequality and gender roles and racial constructions can get in the way of all that, but everyone has something to contribute, and will be happier for getting to contribute it. Everyone deserves to have some fun, and will be better off for having that fun.
It shouldn't be too much to ask.
February 27, 2018
NAHM 2017: Our better natures
Having recently mentioned the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, and Canada withdrawing its objector status, I want to circle back to that.
When the declaration passed in 2007, there were four votes against it. We know about Canada, but they were joined by Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. You may notice that these are all countries that had colonizers fighting and subjugating and abusing the previous residents, and that those issues are not completely resolved yet.
There were also some abstentions, and some "yes" votes that you could easily question - this may be something that I want to delve into more later, but I had not really been aware of the declaration in the first place. I saw a reference to it when I was researching the apology, and then when I saw there was such a thing I was curious because of the Sami.
I was reminded of them by a Final Jeopardy! question. If I had been playing I would have had to answer Lapplanders, which they would have accepted, but which can be seen as derogatory. Anyway, that got me interested and I read up a little. As much as we laud Finland for their educational methods and programs that are helpful for children, Sami get underfunded. They are entitled to day care and instruction in their own language; they have a hard time getting it. Land rights are disputed.
It doesn't seem to be an issue of colonizing. The Sami are classified as indigenous, but they have shared space with the dominant groups for a long time. Somehow, there still seems to be a desire to look down on someone, and discriminate against someone.
As we get more into misogyny we will get more into the resistance to accepting the equality of others when there is a cultural tradition of looking down on them. Yesterday I used my human frailty as an explanation of why I can't be perfectly organized; there are much uglier aspects to that frailty.
Still without intending to excuse it, I do think it is beneficial to acknowledge it and try and understand it. People like Justin Trudeau a lot. He does do some good things. His shortcomings seem to most often come up in relation to indigenous Canadians. Is that a coincidence or a not at all surprising result of years of conditioning? And I ask that knowing that there are other people who are much worse.
For anyone who wants to argue that Trudeau's shortcomings are really more in the realm of the environmental, that's where a lot of the conflicts with indigenous Canadians come up, and that one is definitely not a coincidence.
Also important, I am not picking on Trudeau. He has his good points and bad points like most people, but another key human trait seems to be a desire to divide the world into good and bad people. That can feel very comforting, and it might even seem convenient, but it can't truly be convenient because it doesn't work. That's not how people work. So we need to deal with that.
Recorded history has many instances of people sucking. If we had more historical records, they would probably provide more examples.
But we do good things too. Sometimes we rise to the occasion. Sometimes we say "No!" to injustice. We work toward something better, and then we lose progress again because of the sucking part.
That is not a reason to give up. It is a reason to be realistic. It is a reason to try harder.
When the declaration passed in 2007, there were four votes against it. We know about Canada, but they were joined by Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. You may notice that these are all countries that had colonizers fighting and subjugating and abusing the previous residents, and that those issues are not completely resolved yet.
There were also some abstentions, and some "yes" votes that you could easily question - this may be something that I want to delve into more later, but I had not really been aware of the declaration in the first place. I saw a reference to it when I was researching the apology, and then when I saw there was such a thing I was curious because of the Sami.
I was reminded of them by a Final Jeopardy! question. If I had been playing I would have had to answer Lapplanders, which they would have accepted, but which can be seen as derogatory. Anyway, that got me interested and I read up a little. As much as we laud Finland for their educational methods and programs that are helpful for children, Sami get underfunded. They are entitled to day care and instruction in their own language; they have a hard time getting it. Land rights are disputed.
It doesn't seem to be an issue of colonizing. The Sami are classified as indigenous, but they have shared space with the dominant groups for a long time. Somehow, there still seems to be a desire to look down on someone, and discriminate against someone.
As we get more into misogyny we will get more into the resistance to accepting the equality of others when there is a cultural tradition of looking down on them. Yesterday I used my human frailty as an explanation of why I can't be perfectly organized; there are much uglier aspects to that frailty.
Still without intending to excuse it, I do think it is beneficial to acknowledge it and try and understand it. People like Justin Trudeau a lot. He does do some good things. His shortcomings seem to most often come up in relation to indigenous Canadians. Is that a coincidence or a not at all surprising result of years of conditioning? And I ask that knowing that there are other people who are much worse.
For anyone who wants to argue that Trudeau's shortcomings are really more in the realm of the environmental, that's where a lot of the conflicts with indigenous Canadians come up, and that one is definitely not a coincidence.
Also important, I am not picking on Trudeau. He has his good points and bad points like most people, but another key human trait seems to be a desire to divide the world into good and bad people. That can feel very comforting, and it might even seem convenient, but it can't truly be convenient because it doesn't work. That's not how people work. So we need to deal with that.
Recorded history has many instances of people sucking. If we had more historical records, they would probably provide more examples.
But we do good things too. Sometimes we rise to the occasion. Sometimes we say "No!" to injustice. We work toward something better, and then we lose progress again because of the sucking part.
That is not a reason to give up. It is a reason to be realistic. It is a reason to try harder.
February 26, 2018
NAHM 2017: Taking sides
That title isn't exactly what it sounds like.
For the Aboriginal Worldviews and Education class, I watched 8th Fire: Aboriginal Peoples, Canada, & The Way Forward:
http://www.cbc.ca/8thfire/
It was really excellent, and I highly recommend it from an informational point of view. I acknowledge that part of my enjoyment was the very charismatic host, Wab Kinew.
He did a great job, and I wanted to look up other things he had done. In addition to a pretty interesting career, that included two domestic assault allegations.
Well that was a turnoff.
He denies the allegations, and it would be easy to believe him, or to downplay the allegations against all of the good things he has done, but that doesn't feel quite right, especially in the wake of #metoo, which was at its height right while I was taking the class.
There is also an impaired driving conviction on his record and an assault on a taxi driver. Some of those charges have been cleared and he is applying for a pardon for another one, at least according to Wikipedia.
I mention that because we can look at the stereotype of the drunken Indian, and I have no doubt cracks have been made about that. At the same time, it was only a few posts ago that I was writing about how the disruption of the residential schools and the lack of autonomy and other things could have had a big influence on alcoholism.
In addition, I know Kinew's father was a victim of residential school abuse. I don't know if that abuse was passed on, but Kinew did experience "racially-motivated assaults" while he was growing up. He has definitely been a victim of violence, and it may have been hard for his parents to show him how to be affectionate and safe.
Beyond his personal experience, when we get into all of the rape and assault and harassment that has been coming out with #metoo, I know that there are cultural factors that make it easy to accept a lot of that - which is a vague way of saying it, but that can be explored more at another time.
I also know that there are victims of violence who do not commit violence; it's not an excuse.
In trying to think of how to navigate that - where I am looking at the big picture and having compassion for all parties - that is where studying the apology was most helpful. Seeing that the Canadian government was not asking the recipients of the apology how they felt or what they wanted, that is what was missing.
We are so used overall to focusing on those in power and their side that we may not even realize that we are doing it, but that's the part that needs to change. That's what we need to do for victims of colonialism and racism and misogyny. That's what we need to do for people who had land stolen and their careers halted and people who were raped. That's what we need to do for the descendants of people who had the primary crimes committed against them (though there are usually things still happening now).
It goes against tradition, but looking at the wreckage tradition has left, that's a good thing.
And it would be lovely if I could just segue here so that the next post would be about centering the victims of sexual assault and how we do that, and I would feel so organized and sharp, but I think I forgot to mention some things that are pertinent. I am looking at complex topics with messy intersections, and my posts will reflect that.
I am human, but I am trying to be a good one.
For the Aboriginal Worldviews and Education class, I watched 8th Fire: Aboriginal Peoples, Canada, & The Way Forward:
http://www.cbc.ca/8thfire/
It was really excellent, and I highly recommend it from an informational point of view. I acknowledge that part of my enjoyment was the very charismatic host, Wab Kinew.
He did a great job, and I wanted to look up other things he had done. In addition to a pretty interesting career, that included two domestic assault allegations.
Well that was a turnoff.
He denies the allegations, and it would be easy to believe him, or to downplay the allegations against all of the good things he has done, but that doesn't feel quite right, especially in the wake of #metoo, which was at its height right while I was taking the class.
There is also an impaired driving conviction on his record and an assault on a taxi driver. Some of those charges have been cleared and he is applying for a pardon for another one, at least according to Wikipedia.
I mention that because we can look at the stereotype of the drunken Indian, and I have no doubt cracks have been made about that. At the same time, it was only a few posts ago that I was writing about how the disruption of the residential schools and the lack of autonomy and other things could have had a big influence on alcoholism.
In addition, I know Kinew's father was a victim of residential school abuse. I don't know if that abuse was passed on, but Kinew did experience "racially-motivated assaults" while he was growing up. He has definitely been a victim of violence, and it may have been hard for his parents to show him how to be affectionate and safe.
Beyond his personal experience, when we get into all of the rape and assault and harassment that has been coming out with #metoo, I know that there are cultural factors that make it easy to accept a lot of that - which is a vague way of saying it, but that can be explored more at another time.
I also know that there are victims of violence who do not commit violence; it's not an excuse.
In trying to think of how to navigate that - where I am looking at the big picture and having compassion for all parties - that is where studying the apology was most helpful. Seeing that the Canadian government was not asking the recipients of the apology how they felt or what they wanted, that is what was missing.
We are so used overall to focusing on those in power and their side that we may not even realize that we are doing it, but that's the part that needs to change. That's what we need to do for victims of colonialism and racism and misogyny. That's what we need to do for people who had land stolen and their careers halted and people who were raped. That's what we need to do for the descendants of people who had the primary crimes committed against them (though there are usually things still happening now).
It goes against tradition, but looking at the wreckage tradition has left, that's a good thing.
And it would be lovely if I could just segue here so that the next post would be about centering the victims of sexual assault and how we do that, and I would feel so organized and sharp, but I think I forgot to mention some things that are pertinent. I am looking at complex topics with messy intersections, and my posts will reflect that.
I am human, but I am trying to be a good one.
