Fluorens's Error - a bedtime story about neuroscientists.

Brains are organized and efficient.  They're massively complex, but scientists have been hard at work for a very, very long time trying to figure out how they work.  As much as 7000 years ago, people used to perform trepanation, the boring of a hole into someone's skull to cure them of who-knows-what.  The history of neuroscience continues on to the greeks, with Hippocrates; to the Romans, with Galen; to the Renaissance, with Andreas Vesalius; and so forth and so on.  Obviously, these few individuals I've mentioned do not constitute the whole of historic work on the brain.

One historic researcher, Marie-Jean-Pierre Fluorens, was an advocate of a particular idea about brain functioning.  Fluorens believed that the structure of the brain was related to its function.  He provided solid experimental evidence that the cerebellum was used in coordination, and that the cerebrum was involved in sensation and perception.  While others had made such hypotheses, Fluorens used ablative techniques (damaging specific areas) to prove empirically that it was true.

Franz Joseph Gall, like Fluorens, believed that structure was related to function.  He said that the bumpy brain structures (gyri) were related to behavior, and that bumps on the head were related to the bumps on the brain.  Thus, he invented a pop-pseudo-science known as phrenology.  Gall and his colleagues had data to back up the idea, but it wasn't very good.   More or less, they measured people's heads, and then correlated their personality traits to the various shapes on their head.

Fluorens found this psuedo-science to be preposterous, and his reaction was a bit over-the-top.  He actively argued against Gall and against phrenology.  He demonstrated that the skull's shape was not strongly correlated with the brain's shape.  Fluorens also provided additional ablative evidence that personality traits were not isolated to the neural structures under the skull regions suggested by Gall.  Fluorens concluded that the brain did not localize functions, and instead acted as one big processing machine.

Fluorens's conclusion makes me a little sad.  Modern neuroscience is well aware that different brain regions have different functions, despite a great deal of overlap and interdependency.  The frontal cortex is involved in planning and inhibition, the motor cortex is involved in movement, the somatosensory cortex is involved in sensation, the parietal cortex is involved in association and interpretation, the visual cortex is involved in seeing, and this is just scratching the surface. (I can't help but humorously point out that all of these structures are on the surface of the brain, the cortex, so we really are just scratching the surface.)

But my sorrow is not because Fluorens was wrong.  I'm saddened by the fact that Fluorens was right.  He was right about the cerebellum and cerebrum, and function following form.  However, at some point, Fluorens made a shift from proving things to be true to disproving the pseudo science.  This shift resulted in his final false conclusion.  I'm saddened that his passion for fighting what was wrong overpowered his passion for proving what was right.

For many years now, I've known this story of Fluorens, and I occasionally share it.  I call it the story of Fluorens's error.  His error was not his final conclusion.  We make Fluorens's error by expending our energy to fight against something, instead of fighting for something.

Three things that are not debates, but battles between ignorance and knowledge

Vaccines

Is this still a debate?

I recently saw a friend post about vaccines and autism... again; I thought we shut this down in 2012 or so. Someone sited a statistic that 1 in 50 vaccinations results in autism, and that by 2030, 1 in 2 children will have autism due to vaccines. Besides being absurd (why would the number increase with time? Are we developing vaccines that are better at causing autism?) it's also unsupported by any respectable science. Because of the popularity of the issue, scientists have repeatedly done studies to identify a causative connection between vaccines and autism. It has been proven repeatedly that there is no connection.

People like to say, "But you can't prove that there's no connection, you only prove that you didn't find one." Fair enough. There's also no way to absolutely prove gravity exists - maybe things falling to earth is a coincidence that appears to be gravity. But we're so sure of the importance of vaccination that it's baffling that this terrifying correlation is still being propagated. Terrifying, in that it's scaring people into making dangerous decisions about their children.

Then there's the question of whether parents should be able to choose to vaccinate their kids. I'm not going to get into the religious debate, where people belong to an established religion that doesn't allow vaccination... I just think that's a more tough debate. But in most cases, it should be considered child neglect to neglect vaccination. You don't just decide, "I don't want to feed my kids this week." You can't just do that. "I don't want them to wear clothes. What's wrong with nakedness at school?" You can't do that. As a parent, yes, you make decisions about your child. But when those decisions result in demonstrably dangerous outcomes, we call it neglect or abuse.

If your response is, "But vaccines haven't been PROVEN to help." or "But if some people don't vaccinate it's okay." or "I know what's best for my child." Then, apologies, but you're ignorant - I know you want to list all these anecdotes, all these "studies" and articles that support your side. But you're ignorant for choosing and believing those sources. Search for a single article that supports your case on www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (National Center for Biotechnology Information, associated with Pubmed) or the New England Journal of Medicine. You won't find one. In contrast there are thousands (if not tens of thousands) of studies that support the science behind vaccination. The rare studies that seem to support anti-vaccination have all been either debunked or explained by other means, such as concerns over thiomerosal, which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't in vaccines anymore anyhow. And if you think this is some sort of government conspiracy that is manipulating scientists, then I just can't help you. Cars drive forward, electricity powers lights, medicine cures more diseases every decade. Thanks, science.

But, assuming you accept modern scientific discoveries...Vaccines have been proven to help significantly, eliminating extremely dangerous diseases, reducing the burden of many other diseases, and improving the lives of millions. In contrast, the dangers of SOME people choosing not to vaccinate is evident in the fact that dangerous diseases that were almost eliminated returned when vaccination rates fell off. While "herd immunity" is a real and supported scientific concept, the conclusion from herd immunity is that we should all get vaccinated to protect those who can't. The conclusion is not "it doesn't matter if we get vaccinated."

We give children vaccines for dangerous diseases that can be easily prevented with little to no consequences - diseases that, without vaccines, would be somewhat common and quite horrifying.

If you think that I am just ignorantly following the masses, you are absolutely wrong. I do not passively choose to have my children vaccinated. I don't consider the decision difficult, but I made the decision based on the unarguably solid stance that modern science has taken on this issue. I am not looking to one doctor who, for whatever reason, decides that they want to fight against vaccines. I do not look to anecdotal evidence. I look to the gold standards of medical care in 2017. Gold standards that have been proven over and over during the course of more than a hundred years of concentrated scientific efforts... based on over a thousand years of scientific discoveries. In contrast, those so-called anti-vaxxers are making terrifying choices based on a fad, a few stories, and even a few would-be scientists who believe they can get rich off of fear and ignorance.

If you're a friend who is considering your stance, recognize that children have suffered from diseases since time immemorial, which we have cured by vaccines. To fight against vaccination is to fight against healthy children. I sincerely plead that you get off the popular anti-vaccine bandwagon (which should have broken down years ago).

If you're a random stranger who considers yourself an anti-vaxxer... just move along. You're as likely to convince me you're right as you are to convince me that I have no skin. It would be much easier to convince me that the moon landing of 1969 was faked.
As long as we keep going with these silly arguments about the basic importance of vaccination, it becomes harder to hear serious arguments about how to improve vaccination procedures and production, and ensure relevant safety measures as technology advances. There are real issues at hand. Let's move forward.

A reliable, scientific source for information on vaccines is the CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

What about the evidence of children who have very serious adverse events?

Another friend posted a very sad video of a child having a seizure, recently. I believe I've seen it before (2 years ago?) by a friend who might be considered an anti-vaxxer. I'll be responding to this sad video under the assumption that people watching this video are moved by empathy to avoid causing children and their parents pain.

There's a difference between a mistake and an error. An error is when we do something wrong, and we should have known it was wrong - it is a miscalculation on our part, and the correct course of action was calculable. A mistake is incorrect primarily in the context of the outcome. It can also be an error, or it can be merely a mistake. That is, we can do something wrong because we calculated it wrong (error), and then we feel badly about the outcome (mistake). However, sometimes we calculate everything correctly and do exactly what is right (no error), but the outcome is still bad due to our choices (mistake).

Vaccinations can have extremely rare serious negative side effects, but they are treating diseases that would not be extremely rare if it weren't for vaccines. When we vaccinate, we have what can be seen as a rare mistake, when we ought not have vaccinated a particular child. But unless we knew in advance that the child would have such a reaction, it would not be an error to vaccinate them. Of course, everything changes once we know how they'll react. And the importance of vaccinating everyone becomes doubly important once we find those who MUST be protected by herd immunity rather than personal vaccination.

The video is sad. However, the equivalent video would be a bloodbath of unmeasurable proportions if we were to see the world with nobody vaccinating. Even a world with 50% vaccinating... it would be a terror unlike our generation generally witnesses. The world before vaccines was rampant with death from diseases that are now rare.

If we saw a video with five unvaccinated children infected with smallpox, and watched it through to the end, we would eventually see the cold, limp, lifeless body of four of those children, and it might haunt our dreams to know that we could have prevented those deaths. Indeed, it is a true miracle that smallpox has been conquered by vaccines. What other diseases can we eliminate?

Unless you KNOW otherwise, to vaccinate is never an error, and so giving parents the option to make an error out of fear of the rare mistake is not wise. This is inhumane for two reasons: 1) the child should be given the wisest choice, regardless of the parents ability to reason medically and 2) if the parent makes the wrong choice, whether it’s an error or a mistake, they will bear the psychological burden of causing the outcome.

Although it occasionally turns out to be a serious mistake to vaccinate (remember, that just means the outcomes were undesirable), to make the alternative choice (the error) would result in millions upon millions of mistakes of equal or greater severity.

Climate change

Because of "An Inconvenient Truth" this became a political issue instead of a scientific one. However, the only thing that matters in deciding if this is true is what science has to say about it. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the fact that mankind has caused an unprecedented change in greenhouse gasses. The ensuing change in climate may seem small at this point, but even if mankind's contributions were suddenly eliminated from the earth, it will take far, far longer than our lives or the lives of our children to reverse these changes.

A reliable, scientific source on climate change is the EPA.
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/climate-change-basic-information

And here's NASA.gov on the issue.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Feminism (but not all feminism)

Now, to be fair, there are extreme forms of feminism, and knowing if you're talking to someone who has an academic understanding or an angry ignorance is not always easy. Both are able to spout out facts, and both have strong interest in improving the lives of women (and, frankly, both can be enfuriated by the state of things). Given that my understanding of feminism is primarily self-taught (textbooks, internet searches for quality sources, lots of introspection and contemplation), I do not have sufficient background knowledge to perfectly recognize who are the experts and who are the excessives. However, I have come up with a metric that I believe works most of the time: people whose feminism is primarily about how terrible men are don't get feminism, whereas feminists who have compassion for men get it. The reason why this works is not because the former make me feel bad and the latter do not (though this is true). The reason this works is because feminism (academic, educated feminism) is not about men vs. women, it's about humanity. The fact is that women have been (and in an uncomfortably large number of cases continue to be) treated poorly and there are structures that continue to be in place that do not have their best interest in mind. But the principles of feminism would also protect men if the tables were reversed on a grand level. Men and women everywhere should become educated in egalitarian feminism and seek to promote healthy feminist causes, which in most cases (given where our modern systems derived from) is a very pro woman agenda.

For a man who once thought feminism was quite odd, I've had a surprising number of online arguments with men who I've decided have some fear of being impotent. They swear at me and call me a social justice warrior and a white knight, neither of which should be insults, but neither of which really categorize me correctly. My opinions do not fit into the box of social justice, and they are not formed in order to feel good about myself in relationship to women. My opinions are formed through critical thinking and observation of facts. I can be swayed by facts, though I don't merely trust everything every stranger throws out as factual. Indeed, my opinion on feminism is the opposite of what it once was, and the event that changed my mind: I read a textbook chapter that described feminism dispassionately.

In my opinion, feminism is NOT the radical notion that women are people. It is the radical notion that people are people, and it benefits women (and is called feminism) because women have been treated like they aren't people for so surprisingly long. Feminism is only about women because history has forced it to be so. The principles of feminism are universal truths, which seem drastically slanted because our history has been drastically slanted, but if history had been different, the core values of egalitarian feminism would still be true. Note that there are many sub-types of feminism, and for many of them, this is not the case. Some forms of feminism are not worth pursuing, and frankly give feminism a bad name.

Furthermore, a true knowledge of feminism does not necessarily lead one to action any more than a knowledge of gravity does. However, if one is to build a rocket, a knowledge of gravity is essential. And if one is to build a truly moral society, a knowledge of egalitarian feminism is critical.

Some men and women have latched on to anti-feminist movements. While, in some cases (not all), their intent seems reasonable, the fact is that the movements are missing the point of feminism. As just a brief example, this image suggests that this woman doesn't need feminism because men care about her and respect her and aren't pigs. However, that doesn't have any bearing on whether the principles of egalitarian feminism are true or not. The fact is that this woman, and the wonderful men in her life, probably believe those truths, which is why she so comfortably "doesn't need feminism." It seems to me that such movements are not responding to the academic principles of egalitarian feminism, but to the man-haters who pose as feminists to strengthen their position.

Sure, the minutia of what exactly is wrong and how to fix it can be debated. Also, many things that try to benefit from the label of feminism are not true (and in my opinion not even truly feminist). But the "debate" about whether feminism is right - that's a battle being waged between ignorance and education. And in this battle, the ignorance of the correct side harms it almost as much as the ignorance of the opposing view. Feminism is not a club or a political party - it is an ideology, a collection of truths that have no owner, but which could benefit society if we stop claiming or fighting them and start finding ways to live them.

If these things aren't debates, then why are people still debating them?

To be blunt, people are ignorant. This is not merely an insult. Some people are not in possession of the facts necessary for discussing these topics. They're stuck on popular views that are fully debunked by an accurate knowledge of the world. Could there possibly be something true within those views worth holding on to? Sure, but the views overall are so destructive that it is akin to allowing your house to burn down because you can roast hot-dogs and marshmallows in the fire. Vaccines save lives. Climate change is putting our entire world in danger. Feminism is poised to create a humanity that is deeply moral in their interactions toward each other - it is the best scientific solution to all forms of hate. We need to stop wasting time debating these non-opinions, and start spending time furthering our understanding of how these truths matter.

Why gamers need to stop arguing that video games don't affect them

"Article on internet interprets science so that experts don't need to."

I'm neither for nor against anything in this argument, but I feel like arguments where people are significantly biased are hardly worth investigating or discussing with the general public. See, people will believe whatever they want - I'm sure I'm not the only person who has witnessed this phenomenon online.

Although it doesn't completely discredit any individual study entirely, the article that prompted this blog entry was published in a questionable journal, and was cherry-picked by the author of an internet article because its conclusion inspires a particular feeling within the intended reader. It massages the ego of the readership, and makes them want to return for more confirmation of their world view.

I play video games - odds are I play more than you do, dear reader. In some ways, I'd like to think that my empathy was "unaffected" by video games, but that seems pretty unrealistic - in some ways nonsensical. How do you even measure empathy at a given moment? You can't assign it a value! Consider what it means to be "unaffected" - not only that you lose no "empathy-units" while playing, but that your alternative activity would have provided no increase in empathy.

What if you would have spent some time caring for the elderly, or deepening relationships with family members, or doing community service, or developing a social hobby? Not that these are entirely mutually exclusive from playing video games, mind you. Or, consider how one video game might actively teach people to take actions that are non-empathetic, while another specifically focuses on teaching empathy. I have seen interesting games designed with this in mind as part of health-related video game design competitions.

One tries to instill the idea that everyone is important, and our differences make us strong.

One teaches that sometimes our internal dialogue about other people is not accurate.

One encourages you to consider the plight of schizophrenics. The main character is not merely schizophrenic, but the game attempts to develop empathy within the player for the character.

Personally, I feel like video games are merely a medium for communicating, like any other medium. But video games are very powerful in ways that other mediums aren't. As a medium, it incorporates every potential of writing, of movies, of music, and more.

So, why the heck are gamers so interested in proving that we remain unaffected by them? "My games are boring and don't touch me on anything but a superficial level." What kind of terrible game... What kind of terrible art... Why even play? Go rake some leaves or shovel some snow if it's really all the same to you.

Which leads me to believe that most gamers trying to prove that they're not affected by video games haven't really thought it through. Perhaps they feel a hint of guilt, because there's some kind of stigma associated with gaming.

"Reading - that's for smart people. Gaming - that's for jerks and know-nothing time wasters."

"Playing video games? Go outside! Reading? Oh, now you're good, stay inside and do nothing in this case."

Maybe gamers have defensiveness ingrained because of how they feel their hobby is perceived by others.

Inasmuch as video games are not the deepest, most educating, most moving experiences available, it is due to the fact that the game creators have not made them so. Hey, that's quotable.

Do you think that players of team games (Counter-Strike: GO, or DoTA 2, or LoL) have not actually learned something about teamwork (or at least that they should have) after hundreds of hours of working in small teams to accomplish challenging goals? Do you think that players of management games (Civilization, Total War, Mount & Blade, Cities: Skylines) haven't developed some organizational habits that might matter in the real world?

If you're interested, check out the links to those games to see some examples representing teamwork and organization in those games. Just briefly scan through the linked guide to Cities: Skylines, and it'll baffle you how much organization it takes to follow. Consider how the author of that guide, who describes himself as a student of planning, states, "For me, this is not just a game. This is city building." Anyhow, back to the topic at hand.

If we accept all the positive learning that occurs, then how does it make any sense to say that games that glorify violence and crime, like Doom, Grand Theft Auto, and Payday don't educate people as well. They don't make you suddenly a violent criminal any more than Sim City makes you suddenly a glorious guru of city planning. But there is something that is learned, possibly something transferable. There was a time when gamers were really excited to tout the glorious improvement in hand-eye coordination provided by action games. When people began to respond, "Yeah, but... why do you need that specifically?" the extolling stopped and the gamers went back underground until research started proving other things that were beneficial... but OBVIOUSLY nothing detrimental.

The whole argument appears to simply be a defense of gamers' feelings. Although their feelings do matter, and non-gamers might be utterly careless and unconcerned with the future of gaming, the truth isn't found by being merely defensive and self-affirming.

Just the feeling that "I'm the same person" before and after playing a game doesn't really address the issue... or frankly mean anything, because we're all limited to our own perspective in the reality we live in (n = 1).

Shaming male birth control study participants is wrong in more ways than one.

Am I seriously posting about this thing again? I guess so. I've mentioned this topic a few times on social media.

Lots of articles are reporting on this drug trial where the wimpy man-things gave up on birth control because it gave them oh-so-well-known side-effects.  Most of the articles and web commentary are getting it wrong because, hey, it's fun to talk trash about men. The most recent article I read gets at least 2 things absolutely wrong:
1) "96% effective" only appears to be similar to other birth control methods if your math skills are limited to addition and subtraction. It's more than twice as bad as condoms alone, where user error ruins the effectiveness significantly. Modern IUDs are almost 100% effective; when they don't work is when they fall out unnoticed. Even female hormonal birth control is more than 99% effective. This new drug was, like... 10 to 100 (maybe 1000) times more likely to mess up than those traditional methods. It is a lot harder to reduce sperm count to 0 with reasonable hormone doses than to stop ovulation. 4 couples on birth control got pregnant during the "efficacy phase" of this study! I hope they were looking to have children.
2) "The effects of injections were completely reversible..." except for the guys who say they became impotent and haven't yet recovered. Oh, and the 5% of participants whose spermatogenesis didn't return to normal for 52 weeks until the scientists stopped watching.

In the end, the female partners responded that they "wouldn't use this form of birth control again" 20% MORE frequently than the males who were actually using it. You might think that percentage would be understandably elevated by the women who got pregnant, but the study doesn't delineate which participants said what.

I wish people would stop acting like this is super-duper obvious, and start appreciating that there were 320 men who tried a new method of birth control that had seriously troubling side-effects, and 75% of them are rearing for more pain when the drug trials resume. The only thing they had to gain was taking the burden of birth control off of women, which is pretty selfless. An ounce of compassion in return, please?

The only thing that actually bothers me are the sexist, inaccurate, anti-male reports that are flooding the internet. The sarcasm, and dare I say it, the misandry... it's just plain unwarranted. Perhaps it's what increases your viewership or makes you the most money, but it's also wrong on many levels. No self-respecting feminist would give in to this kind of demeaning, hate-derived social commentary. Especially against volunteers who should be seen as pioneers.

Interactive education about Islam is a good thing

I recently read an article that complained about a school having children copy calligraphy during a lesson on the culture of Islam:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/12/15/students-practice-calligraphy-by-writing-there-is-no-god-but-allah.html

I realize that this may be disturbing to some people.  However, I personally see it as good education - play is the best way to learn.  No child is going to know what that text says - it's just calligraphy to them.  But, personally, I think it would be even better if they DID know what it said.  We're talking about educating people, not indoctrinating them.  Understanding what others believe is not a bad thing!!!

They let the kids draw calligraphy, try on hijab-like head coverings, and learn about the geography and culture.

The article states (in what comes across as outrage), "In other words, there were more than likely a few Christian teenagers in that room who had no idea they were writing, 'There is no god but Allah.'  But the school district doesn’t seem to think that’s a problem."

It is NOT a problem.  There is no Christian belief that prohibits learning about other cultures.  Nobody was asked to recite any belief sacred to Islam... but why should we live in a world where we're afraid to know or even memorize alternative beliefs?

I hope that my kids are lucky enough to have teachers who make learning interactive; who present a safe environment for considering what the world is like; who help my children to challenge their preconceived notions; who open their minds to complicated issues.  Personally, I WANT my children to really understand all the world.

Someone might make the argument that this is akin to showing children pornography as a means of helping them understand what pornographers are doing.  I guess I can see where you're coming from, except that you and I see either pornography or Islam very differently.  I tend to think it's the latter, and that Islam (the religion of 23% of the world) deserves more respect.

Communication and disagreeing

People have debated about what makes humans stand out among creatures on earth.  One ecologist friend of mine argued that it was the magnitude of our many talents.  Some people argue that it is our use of tools.  And, you guessed it, some argue that it is our ability to communicate.

Communication affects our every day lives.  We communicate with our bosses, our children, our parents, our friends, our lovers.  Some communication is verbal, other is non-verbal.

I've been really stressed lately about a lot of things (I'm on the up-slope of a hill in my life, right now).  So, today I got in an argument that rattled me a bit, and it got me thinking about communication.  The fight may as well have been about which fruit was the tastiest, or how big an elephant can grow on a particular diet...  and I don't know who raised their voice first, but there we were shouting at the top of our lungs, interrupting each other.  Ignoring each other at the very same time that we were giving each other our full attention.

What disturbed me most was that once the fight escalated, it was no longer about what was right.  Even though I'd like to say that I was fighting to prove a point that was correct... the reality is that by the time we had our voices raised, we had both made up our minds.  And we were both angry.

Now, I raise my voice in excitement pretty often.  I raise my voice because there's a lot of noise in a room, or I'm emotionally invested in the topic I'm discussing.  But I very rarely raise my voice out of anger, or as some weird way of proving my point (because whoever talks the loudest and most is right, right??)  I don't often do that, despite my willingness to debate most any topic.

So, I did a quick search online, looking for a good way to tone down an escalated argument, without simply withdrawing.  I worry that withdrawing might imply that I don't care about the argument, or the person I'm arguing with.  Obviously, there comes a point where withdrawing is on the table, but I would hate for it to be a means of disrespecting the other person or their opinion.

I found these suggestions:
1) Agree with them - instead of rapidly describing all the reasons they're wrong, state their case as reasonably as you're able.  This does a few really useful things.
First, it keeps you from ignoring them - it helps you truly listen.
Second, it communicates to them that you care about their opinion.  Of course you care about their opinion, or you wouldn't be wasting your time with them... but they should feel that.
Thirdly, if you're unable to find anything reasonable about their point of view, odds are you haven't truly considered it.  By taking the time to clarify their argument, you consider the truth behind it.

2) Don't escalate further - Arguments aren't really worth ending a friendship or ending a marriage.  If arguing is really going to end your friendship, you'd be better off mute around the person (and, indeed, one site pointed out that nobody gets angry about how you're listening to them too well).  But any two people who show respect for each other can have healthy disagreements.  The problems arise when you decide you WANT to fight.  You WANT to make them angry.  You WANT to win more than you want to converse or find truth.  But, 99.9% of the time, it just doesn't matter as much as your friendship!

3) Change your argument - The reality is that every discussion has underlying messages.  What is your underlying message?  Is the message, "I want you to respect me" or "I'm feeling worried about X, Y, or Z" or "I want to help you" or "I had a fun idea"?  Cause the points being argued about may not be the underlying issues.  Pause, take a breath, and state what is underneath the argument (in a non-accusatory fashion, of course).  Make your intentions known, not your argument.  And, if your intentions turn out to be dumb, fess up to yourself that you're being dumb.  "Ok... so basically I want to be seen as superior.  That's dumb, I'd better stop acting like this toward her."  or "My whole point here is that I'm an independent thinker.  If I really am, I don't need to force that point." or "My whole point is to hurt her feelings.  That's not a good goal."

Sometimes people give the best advice to kids:
http://kidshealth.org/teen/your_mind/families/tips_disagree.html

I generally consider myself a very open minded person.  I consider myself a good listener who focuses more on the person I'm listening to than what I plan on saying.  I consider myself rational and patient and friendly.  I believe I've helped people in my life by simply listening to them.

But I proved today that I'm not always that way.  I bet I'm not alone.

Feminism and Sexism: An introductory perspective for people who aren't mad about anything

Feminism

My old view

First off, let me say that, coming into this issue, I was a rather uninformed observer.  My perspective on feminism basically had a few core thoughts, with varying degrees of strength.  I hadn't considered the validity of these assumptions.  I just admit that I had them:
1) Feminism is an extreme perspective where women insist on their own dominance and superiority over men.
2) Otherwise healthy women (and only women) fall into this trap of calling themselves feminists because they feel like it makes them strong women.
3) Feminism is potentially dangerous to men because of the anti-male mentality of feminists.

A New View

After spending dozens of hours researching the issue online and in books and articles, I have changed my perspective.  A more accurate set of assumptions about feminism might look like this:
1) Feminism is a diverse set of views that are unified by the belief that ALL people (not just women) should be treated equally.
2) Every reasonable person, whether they are willing to admit it or not, is a feminist... because anyone who believes that people shouldn't be treated equally is kind of a jerk.
3) While some feminists, and some forms of feminism are anti-male, these views are not held by the majority of reasonable feminists.

Quickly, I'd like to qualify #2 from this second set, because it could potentially offend some people.  I see two main reasons for this:
A)  Someone might not wish to be associated with feminism, and they may feel that it is presumptuous of me to say what their view is.
B) Others may have philosophical arguments that, while respecting all people, demonstrate how equality is not real.

In response to A, my purpose in saying this isn't to define your views.  Rather, it is to define feminism.  Before doing a little deeper research, I viewed feminism as potentially quite extreme.  However, most modern feminists are not.  Historically, I think feminists tended to be necessarily more extreme, because to take a stance that specifically challenged the dominance of men WAS extreme, and required extreme people who were willing to be seen as a little crazy in the culture they lived in.  The current reality is not like that.  For the most part, modern feminists are philosophical and work with the established social system, despite its flaws.

In response to B, the philosophical arguments suggesting that equality is not real are equivocating.  Feminists are NOT saying that women are men (except really crazy feminists, who are rare).  Feminists are NOT saying that there is equality between people within our society.  Feminists are NOT saying that men and women face the same challenges, or have evolved the same way, or think the same way, or experience life the same way.  Actually, most feminists agree, even argue, that women are very different from men, that society treats people unequally, that men and women face unique challenges, that they have evolved to be very different entities, think very differently, and experience life very differently.  Some historic feminists have gone so far as to say that women interact with language so differently that even the definition of a sentence is based on how a man views language - which is a claim that is not subtle or trivial, and has many implications.

Feminists are not saying that people are equals in that sense.  The feminist idea is that everyone deserves the same degree of respect.  Respect is not simply liking someone.  It is letting them speak, it is hearing their view, it is allowing them to have the autonomy that you want for yourself.

Women are from Venus

For a moment, let's consider a race of alien beings that come to earth.  They seem friendly, so in our great kindness, we build them houses, teach them, and incorporate them into human society.  We are friendly and welcoming in every way we can be.  What are the moral implications of what we've done?  The unwritten assumption is that we don't know anything about them.  We have no idea what their natural habitat is.  We don't know how their brains work, or how successful our educational system will be with them.  We don't know anything about their culture, and impose our "superior" cultural view upon them.

This example is good for 2 reasons.  First, feminism asserts that women are different organisms from men, with different needs, different views, a different voice, different desires, etc.  Second, society has almost always been patriarchal, with men leading the governments, writing the literature, and teaching in schools.  If women really are quite different, then they are being raised in a society that is alien to them.

Now, in this example, if the aliens were feminist, they wouldn't suddenly grab their phasers and take over human society.  They would write books, do research, make speeches, make blogs, make youtube videos.  Because 1000 years down the line, even the aliens don't remember who they were.  The question is, "How can a person truly know herself if she has been raised by aliens?"  What are women really like?  We can't possibly know, because they've been raised by a masculine culture.  They have men's ideals, men's educational values, men's history, men's sexuality, etc.  This is not to disparage men or men's views at all.  It is simply recognizing that there is a potential alternative, and respecting that view.

Are feminists just angry people?

Imagine how angry a macho man might be if he were suddenly forced to wear pink bunny pajamas with a purple bow, and then told to watch the Bratz cartoon for the rest of his life.  He'd bust some faces!  Some women, when coming to the realization that they are trapped on a man's planet, get angry.  Their anger is extremely understandable.  The only problem is if they try to blame their anger on a particular person.  Cause, like I've mentioned in the past, human society is a giant machine with cogs constantly moving and no direct way of altering its function.

However, feminism is not angry.  Particular people may be angry, which I think, as an outsider, looks a little crazy.  But feminism is not a philosophy about violently revolting against men.  It is a philosophy about discovering what women (and all people) really are, and letting them blossom for themselves.

But feminism is somewhat more complex than this

Before I move on, I'll add that this is one view of feminism, which encompasses a great many views on feminism that I consider to be very reasonable.  There are also feminists that I flat out disagree with.  However, my purpose today is to demonstrate how feminism is a really reasonable thing, and I feel that by arguing about the feminist views I disagree with, I would be undermining my argument at this point.  I'm not saying all feminists are reasonable.  I'm saying that YOU can be a feminist without being a weirdy.

And lastly, before I move on, let me also point out that I'm not an expert on feminism.  Would a "true" feminist describe feminists differently?  Yes.  Would an expert on feminist theory describe it differently? Yes.  But part of the point of my blog post is to enable the non-expert, non-feminist to recognize the value of feminism.  Perhaps feminism's greatest weakness is its image to the uninformed.  So, in this case, my feeble voice on the issue is superior to the expert and the life-long feminist.

Sexism

Prejudice + Power, and why I disagree with the feminist definition

Let me emphasize that sexism goes both ways.  I will be referring to sexism by men against women, but I feel very strongly that sexism by women against men occurs and is equally wrong.  At least some feminists hold a specific definition of sexism that says sexism is a one way street.  This is because the group that has the power in society (i.e. men) are able to employ sexism in a powerful and damaging way, whereas those without power (i.e. women) cannot do the same.

At first glance, this notion seems ridiculous.  If someone is sexist, they're sexist, and it's wrong either way.  If a man doesn't get a job because he's a man, it is sexist, even if he were the only man to ever receive that sort of treatment.  The fundamental feminist ideology, the equality of all people, tears down this definition. A true feminist can't simply make excuses for excluding men from the definition of "all people".

However, they aren't specifically being anti-man when they say this.  Instead, they are trying to develop a vocabulary that is capable of addressing the many facets of the arguments.  Sexism, in the feminist sense, refers specifically to prejudice on the basis of gender by a group that has the power to do something about their prejudice.  In contrast, sexism against man is termed merely prejudice, because there is no power behind it.

I disagree with this idea.  I'm open minded, and willing to consider the implications of accepting or disagreeing with this idea.  But, men are not in charge by definition.  They have historically been in charge, and they are still in charge in many ways.  But that does not mean that women have no power over men, or that prejudice against men is impotent.  The assumption that men need no defense, need not be included in definitions that apply to everyone else, and need not have equal consideration... to me, it comes across very oddly.  It seems like a special effort by women who fear that their own tools to escape from prejudice will be used against them.

I am empathetic to this feeling, and I feel that they deserve protection from such a short-circuit.  But I also feel that feminism is not simply about the relationship between men and women as it stood 1000 or 100 years ago, or as it stands today.  Feminism has the capacity to address the societal relationships between all peoples forever more.  Furthermore, women do have power, even if the division of power is not equal.  And some men are powerless.  As society progresses, it becomes more and more dangerous to simply assume that men are in power.

After all, even if "men" are in power, a man need not be.  Consider the case of a man who is good and kind to all he meets, but he is subjected to gender-based prejudice that results in great loss.  The loss isn't lessened by the fact that he's a man, or that some men have power, or that some men abuse power to hurt women, or that there is more male literature, or that there are generations of authority behind sexism against women.  His experience is equivalent to that of a woman who faces the same experience.  Some feminists would disagree with this, because of what I've written in the prior sentence.  Prejudice and power have harmed him, and I'd darn well call that sexist.

As with everything, I'm still learning about this.  I'm open minded, and willing to consider the implications of what I'm saying.  I'm no expert.  But I hope you will equally consider my thoughts.  I really doubt I'm the first to argue this case against the feminist definition of sexism.

Sexism as an impersonal cultural issue

I will begin with a statement that I think would be somewhat shocking to someone who knows how I feel about sexism:  Sexism is not something to feel guilty about.  Now, why do I say that?

In part, it is because sexism is not the same as sexist acts.  Sexism is a cultural view, not necessarily a personal one.  Sexist acts, on the other hand, are personally performed.  A boss might not hire someone because she is a woman - that's not only sexism.  It is a sexist act.  It also happens to be based on an inaccurate cultural idea that women are not as capable as men.  Did the boss create that idea?  No, not necessarily.  The boss simply lives in the culture that promotes the idea.  As long as the boss doesn't act on those cultural impressions, then the boss is helping to solve the problem rather than propagate it.  Thus, the boss would neither be responsible for the thought, nor be supporting its advancement.

Likewise, sexism is not the same as sexuality.  A man may find a woman very attractive (and you will find upon further inspection that many do).  This is not wrong or bad.  This may be an obvious statement, but I think that sometimes people smear the good and the bad, and it can be very confusing.  A boy or man should not feel guilty about finding a woman attractive -- where would the human race be if this weren't the case?

However, our actions must be more refined than our experience.  A man who seeks to act on his attraction for a woman should do so in a way that respects her.  In some cases, that simply means not acting on the attraction at all, ever, as in the case of a professional relationship.  Consider also the case when he has authority over her.  It is not sexist to feel this attraction.  It actually isn't necessarily sexist per se to act on it.  But it can be inappropriate, and it can be sexual harassment.  It would only be sexist to feel that a man should be able to act on their sexual feelings in an inappropriate situation where a woman could not.

A person should not feel guilty about what our culture is, because you and I didn't make it.  But, we should feel compelled to fight against the negative, and fight for the positive.  It would be more reasonable, though not completely accurate, to say that we should feel guilty about the culture that exists after we're dead.  What will we help to create?

Can sexism be personally constructed and held on to?  Yeah.  So stop that.

Results and being open minded

I don't know if all feminists want everyone to start thinking like feminists.  I occasionally get the sense that some feminists see feminism as a club.  A girls club, making up for thousands of years of boys clubs.  Similarly, I get the sense that some feminists don't care how empowering women affects men.  If it turns out that men become slaves in a few generations, it wouldn't bother them at all.  I think that's not at the core of feminism, and the anti-male attitudes make it really hard for many people, especially men, to take on feminist ideas.

But, like I said, I think there are some feminists who want feminism to remain that way.  They want it to be unappealing to men; they want it to be a club for women.  Why?  Leaving men out of the feminist movement is leaving out half of your potential supporters!  By adopting anti-male attitudes, you are leaving behind the universal truths of feminism, the potentially world changing ideas, in favor of a girls club.  To be anti-male is not only sexist (SEXIST), it is anti-feminist.

I want to learn more.  I want to empower women (as a group).  I want to reduce sexism.  I want my wife, my sister, my sons' future wives, and any of my female descendants to live in a world where they are at home, truly happy, and fully themselves.  I view this issue as larger than myself and my own self-interest.  I am open minded.  Shouldn't that be appreciated by feminists? 

But, being open minded is not enough to feminists, in general, because they are a results oriented bunch.  It isn't enough to say you tried, and it isn't enough to apologize for doing something sexist, even if it's an accident.  They want to see sexism eradicated, not just have people feel badly about it.

To which, my apologetic reply is: We need to start where we are.  Give men a break as we seek to be part of the movement to overcome the social issues that we did not create.  Nobody can change 1000 years of history, or provide an additional 1000 years of history without the passage of time.