School reform is another one of those issues that I find fairly interesting...although a lot of the discussion of it lately is more frustrating than anything else. This article in the New York Times isn't too bad though.
It's about the superintendent of Baltimore, and I think the most interest part of it is his decision that it was important to decrease suspensions. He created a requirement that someone in his office had to sign off on a suspension of more than 5 days. (5 days?! Admittedly, I didn't exactly get in a whole lot of trouble in school, or keep close track of the people that did, but 5 days is a pretty long suspension, right?). He's managed to cut down suspensions from 26,000 a year to less than 10,000 a year in six years. Obviously, that doesn't necessarily mean that the kids are better behaved...but in the same time the dropout rate has fallen by half, which is definitely significant.
I took P.E. my senior year of high school, which is a bad, bad idea if you are already fed up with the immaturity and stupidity of people younger than you. There was this kid in the class...a sophomore, obviously a stoner, who barely ever bothered to show up. And then, the one day he did, the teacher got on his case about the shoes he was wearing (some kind of Timberlands or something...not good P.E. shoes but he also wasn't going to die putting in the same lackluster effort towards P.E. that the rest of us were planning on) and sent him out of class. That still sticks out in my memory of one of the worst instances of teaching I ever witnessed. Who knows if that guy ended up graduating or not, but if he did...no thanks to her.
I can see how a culture where suspension is the solution to every problem could completely undermine the message that school is important and dropping out means missed opportunities. Hell, it's practically like handing out free samples, and students who are already frustrated at school aren't likely to like it any better when they come back two weeks behind in all their classes. The trade off, of course, is that suspension is easier on teachers than a lot of other options...and if you are going to ask them to use a more labor intensive form of discipline, you have to accept that they are going to have less time for other things. But it might be a worthwhile trade off, and I think that whatever gains there are to be found in school reform are going to come from figuring out which of these kinds of things are most effective. (Rather than say, setting some arbitrary goal and offering to keep firing teachers and replacing them with shiny but not necessarily better new ones until it happens).
Also, the article mentions that the superintendent compares himself to a character in War and Peace....an excellent excuse to bring up the fact that I read that book. (I read War and Peace, did you know? Mostly just so I could say I read it, but as it turns out, it's pretty decent). Which character though? It makes a big difference, since one of the main characters of the book is actually a guy who gets swept up in silly political ideologies but is completely inept at actually implementing them. Was it that guy? The failure of the writer to pursue this further makes me suspect that unlike me, he has not read War and Peace. In which case, woohoo! I am smarter than people who write for the New York Times by a completely arbitrary metric!
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Gender Complimentarianism
I'm developing a habit of starting drafts for posts based on articles that I want to say something about, but then waiting until the article is old and dusty and maybe not worth commenting on anymore. But it's not like I'm part of any larger time sensitive online conversation...and in this case, the article itself isn't time sensitive at all either. So here is my attempt to just spit it out.
A couple weeks ago, the New York Times magazine had this article on gender complimentarianism. I find this kind of stuff fascinating, because I think it underlies a lot of current political divisions (Why would a conservative couple in a rural red states care passionately enough about whether two gay men can get married in San Francisco to donate money? Because of what it says about gender roles in their own marriage), because unlike energy or foreign policy it's easy to have a layman's position (I've been biologically female for 26 years...that makes me an expert, right?) and because ultimately I think I occupy an intermediate position between the two sides (Gorillas, chimps, and orangutans show dramatic gender differences, so why on earth would we expect humans not to? But at the same time, any observation of human beings shows that gender roles are at the very least incredibly flexible, and I don't know how any pragmatic approach to the world could refuse to account for that).
The world view portrayed in this article I think is ultimately more idealistic than pragmatic. Women should submit to their husbands, husbands should in turn be natural leaders, and if it doesn't work out that way one of them must be failing at their gender role. I imagine that they are free to argue whether the failure is because the wife was too overbearing and emasculating or because the husband just plain wasn't man enough. I think it's interesting that the example of submitting to a husband's will used in the article is choosing the name of a child...i.e., a decision with no actual real world consequences whatsoever. What about a woman whose husband insists on driving all night when she sees him nodding off and swerving around on the road? Or one whose husband wants to buy a house she doesn't think they can afford? It would be much more interesting to see how their philosophy translates to those kinds of decisions. Do they actually believe that men have some inherent wisdom that women should always defer to? Or maybe that even if women might know better in some situations, they should only assert themselves carefully and deferentially...so as to avoid undermining the fragile foundations of true manhood, potentially sending their husbands on a downward spiral of unemployment and sex clubs? Or does it really just boil down to mutual respect, a reminder that whoever you married once made it through life perfectly fine without you telling them what to do, and may have to again (with your children!!!) if you die or become incapacitated, so you should be able to accept the decisions they make even when you disagree with them. (Of course, in that case, it would go both ways...but I can see how speaking to a mostly female audience you might focus on the wife's part).
The article mentions the possibility that they're making a distinction without a difference; that ultimately the decision making process in "complementarian" partnerships looks almost exactly like the decision making process between two Berkeley gender studies professors married to each other. I think there's a good chance that's true. But I think it's also very interesting why that distinction might become so important to people. (This is a complete cop out of an ending, but I don't seem to have a better one).
A couple weeks ago, the New York Times magazine had this article on gender complimentarianism. I find this kind of stuff fascinating, because I think it underlies a lot of current political divisions (Why would a conservative couple in a rural red states care passionately enough about whether two gay men can get married in San Francisco to donate money? Because of what it says about gender roles in their own marriage), because unlike energy or foreign policy it's easy to have a layman's position (I've been biologically female for 26 years...that makes me an expert, right?) and because ultimately I think I occupy an intermediate position between the two sides (Gorillas, chimps, and orangutans show dramatic gender differences, so why on earth would we expect humans not to? But at the same time, any observation of human beings shows that gender roles are at the very least incredibly flexible, and I don't know how any pragmatic approach to the world could refuse to account for that).
The world view portrayed in this article I think is ultimately more idealistic than pragmatic. Women should submit to their husbands, husbands should in turn be natural leaders, and if it doesn't work out that way one of them must be failing at their gender role. I imagine that they are free to argue whether the failure is because the wife was too overbearing and emasculating or because the husband just plain wasn't man enough. I think it's interesting that the example of submitting to a husband's will used in the article is choosing the name of a child...i.e., a decision with no actual real world consequences whatsoever. What about a woman whose husband insists on driving all night when she sees him nodding off and swerving around on the road? Or one whose husband wants to buy a house she doesn't think they can afford? It would be much more interesting to see how their philosophy translates to those kinds of decisions. Do they actually believe that men have some inherent wisdom that women should always defer to? Or maybe that even if women might know better in some situations, they should only assert themselves carefully and deferentially...so as to avoid undermining the fragile foundations of true manhood, potentially sending their husbands on a downward spiral of unemployment and sex clubs? Or does it really just boil down to mutual respect, a reminder that whoever you married once made it through life perfectly fine without you telling them what to do, and may have to again (with your children!!!) if you die or become incapacitated, so you should be able to accept the decisions they make even when you disagree with them. (Of course, in that case, it would go both ways...but I can see how speaking to a mostly female audience you might focus on the wife's part).
The article mentions the possibility that they're making a distinction without a difference; that ultimately the decision making process in "complementarian" partnerships looks almost exactly like the decision making process between two Berkeley gender studies professors married to each other. I think there's a good chance that's true. But I think it's also very interesting why that distinction might become so important to people. (This is a complete cop out of an ending, but I don't seem to have a better one).
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Battle Cry of Freedom
I picked up Battle Cry of Freedom because Ta-Nehisi Coates has been talking about it a lot, and because it fits into my conceit that there are a lot of things that I should know more about and that I will enjoy just about any book that is well written. I hated learning about the Civil War back in middle school, but chances seem good that I've evolved since then.
So far in things that I should know more about, or at least be more aware of: the prologue is titled "From the Halls of Montezuma." I recently read somewhere (possibly this book, or this one) that a little discussed precipitor of the ever-so-valient secession of Texas from Mexico was that Mexico had just outlawed slavery, so that's kind of where my mind went...that political happenings in Mexico would be part of a more general international climate that set the scene for the Civil War. Maybe the next section would be on abolitionism in England. The opening lyrics of the Marine's Hymn never meant more to me than "all around the world." It took a while to dawn on me that the reference was actually to the specific event that the song is describing, something that I've never actually thought about in all the times I've listened to it: that American soldiers actually marched through the streets of Mexico City after we invaded their country. Apparently the Mexican-American War was very politically contentious in the United States even while it was being fought. I may have to find a book to read about it next. (This is the problem with making it a goal to find out more about the world...you mostly just end up finding out about more things you really should find out more about).
So far in things that I should know more about, or at least be more aware of: the prologue is titled "From the Halls of Montezuma." I recently read somewhere (possibly this book, or this one) that a little discussed precipitor of the ever-so-valient secession of Texas from Mexico was that Mexico had just outlawed slavery, so that's kind of where my mind went...that political happenings in Mexico would be part of a more general international climate that set the scene for the Civil War. Maybe the next section would be on abolitionism in England. The opening lyrics of the Marine's Hymn never meant more to me than "all around the world." It took a while to dawn on me that the reference was actually to the specific event that the song is describing, something that I've never actually thought about in all the times I've listened to it: that American soldiers actually marched through the streets of Mexico City after we invaded their country. Apparently the Mexican-American War was very politically contentious in the United States even while it was being fought. I may have to find a book to read about it next. (This is the problem with making it a goal to find out more about the world...you mostly just end up finding out about more things you really should find out more about).
Anachronistic peroxide.
We can get into the political correctness of this later (or really, let's not), but a lot of fantasy-novel-to-movie-adaptations have characters that are supposed to play on a lot of Norse stereotypes...blond, blue eyed, etc. Am I the only one who is confused why casting directors seem to continuously come up with men who look like this for these parts? Are they afraid that a naturally blond actor would be too pretty and lacking in manly stubble? Do they not realize that these characters are often written as blond because of the pretty/feminine connotations?
Saturday, November 20, 2010
The world is a big place.
News from Afghanistan: 92 percent of men in key province are unaware of 2001 attacks on U.S.
This article seems to think that the takeaway from this is, "Well surely, we could just tell them! Then they'll know what wonderful people we are and everything will be better!" Somehow I doubt that that's it. I guess it's possible that the vast majority of Afghan men have just never been exposed to this particular piece of information, and that it will completely rework their world view. I think it's much more likely though that many of them may have heard it somewhere, and just didn't care enough to remember it. And those that did remember certainly didn't think it was important or interesting enough to repeat to others. Even if you could somehow send a memo to every man, woman, and child in Afghanistan, I bet you within a couple months you'd be back in roughly the same place.
I think the takeaway from this should be humility. There are still places in the world where nobody thinks that much about the United States, and places in the world where the official line of the US government doesn't carry any particular weight compared to other more local sources of information...so little weight that it doesn't even get repeated. We've had armed soldiers in their country for almost a decade, and still Afghan men feel like there are better uses for their expertise than analyzing American motives...and they probably have good reasons for feeling that way. (I have no idea what they are, but I assume that most Afghans are pragmatic and rational people, at least as much as people anywhere else are). I think it's important to realize that, and keep it in mind any time someone gives you some utopian vision of what would happen if we could just send troops into some part of the world or another. The United States is an extremely powerful country, but there are limits.
This article seems to think that the takeaway from this is, "Well surely, we could just tell them! Then they'll know what wonderful people we are and everything will be better!" Somehow I doubt that that's it. I guess it's possible that the vast majority of Afghan men have just never been exposed to this particular piece of information, and that it will completely rework their world view. I think it's much more likely though that many of them may have heard it somewhere, and just didn't care enough to remember it. And those that did remember certainly didn't think it was important or interesting enough to repeat to others. Even if you could somehow send a memo to every man, woman, and child in Afghanistan, I bet you within a couple months you'd be back in roughly the same place.
I think the takeaway from this should be humility. There are still places in the world where nobody thinks that much about the United States, and places in the world where the official line of the US government doesn't carry any particular weight compared to other more local sources of information...so little weight that it doesn't even get repeated. We've had armed soldiers in their country for almost a decade, and still Afghan men feel like there are better uses for their expertise than analyzing American motives...and they probably have good reasons for feeling that way. (I have no idea what they are, but I assume that most Afghans are pragmatic and rational people, at least as much as people anywhere else are). I think it's important to realize that, and keep it in mind any time someone gives you some utopian vision of what would happen if we could just send troops into some part of the world or another. The United States is an extremely powerful country, but there are limits.
Friday, November 19, 2010
On things not actually being written by Robert Jordan
Finished the book! Things turned out...fairly predictably. Which isn't a complaint, really. I just have nothing in particular to say about the last 300 pages of the book that I didn't already say about the first 500. (So. Many. Pages.)
This series has really given me a new perspective on the writing process, however. Obviously, Robert Jordan deserves credit for creating something that many, many people wanted to read. The first books in the series completely sucked me in...I read them obsessively, and then obsessed over what would happen and how the mysteries would unfold. I think once I actually managed to read an entire 700+ page book in a single day, probably practically a single sitting. But the last couple that he wrote himself, not so much.* It was obvious that somewhere along the way he lost his momentum on the plot, the books got longer and more bogged down in detail while nothing happened. A lot of time when a TV show gets worse and worse in its later seasons, it's because they're trying to drag it out too long, or maybe never knew how to end it in the first place. I kind of thought that was the case with Wheel of Time, too. Watching what's happened since Robert Jordan passed away though, and the writing was handed over to another author, has been really interesting. My theory now is that lagging fantasy series probably suffer from a completely different malady than TV shows that have jumped the shark. Each author is supposed to create a whole universe, and then find the balance between keeping the plot chugging and making sure that the readers know all the intricately imagined details of the marriage customs of this or that people and the mythology of that one clan. I'm a loyalist by nature. My first instinct is always that whatever came first is the best...but I'm realizing that might be off in this case. Maybe a fantasy series is more like a growing business. In the beginning, one guy with a vision does everything; answers the phones, maintaining the books, and turning out whatever product they make by hand. But as a business gets bigger, and people want more and more from it (or as a fantasy series gets more popular, and there's suddenly a market for more and more details about that world), you can't just keep the same one guy doing everything. You might need one guy to keep churning out the detail and texture and background that most people are looking for in fantasy (what other kind of popular fiction requires so many appendices?), and another to drag the plot across the finish line. I don't think it takes anything away from Robert Jordan to admit that the series is better because he didn't end up doing both.
*I probably still read them obsessively, but I tend to do that equally as much with books that I am just trying to get through, and books that I am actually loving. It confuses some people.
This series has really given me a new perspective on the writing process, however. Obviously, Robert Jordan deserves credit for creating something that many, many people wanted to read. The first books in the series completely sucked me in...I read them obsessively, and then obsessed over what would happen and how the mysteries would unfold. I think once I actually managed to read an entire 700+ page book in a single day, probably practically a single sitting. But the last couple that he wrote himself, not so much.* It was obvious that somewhere along the way he lost his momentum on the plot, the books got longer and more bogged down in detail while nothing happened. A lot of time when a TV show gets worse and worse in its later seasons, it's because they're trying to drag it out too long, or maybe never knew how to end it in the first place. I kind of thought that was the case with Wheel of Time, too. Watching what's happened since Robert Jordan passed away though, and the writing was handed over to another author, has been really interesting. My theory now is that lagging fantasy series probably suffer from a completely different malady than TV shows that have jumped the shark. Each author is supposed to create a whole universe, and then find the balance between keeping the plot chugging and making sure that the readers know all the intricately imagined details of the marriage customs of this or that people and the mythology of that one clan. I'm a loyalist by nature. My first instinct is always that whatever came first is the best...but I'm realizing that might be off in this case. Maybe a fantasy series is more like a growing business. In the beginning, one guy with a vision does everything; answers the phones, maintaining the books, and turning out whatever product they make by hand. But as a business gets bigger, and people want more and more from it (or as a fantasy series gets more popular, and there's suddenly a market for more and more details about that world), you can't just keep the same one guy doing everything. You might need one guy to keep churning out the detail and texture and background that most people are looking for in fantasy (what other kind of popular fiction requires so many appendices?), and another to drag the plot across the finish line. I don't think it takes anything away from Robert Jordan to admit that the series is better because he didn't end up doing both.
*I probably still read them obsessively, but I tend to do that equally as much with books that I am just trying to get through, and books that I am actually loving. It confuses some people.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Why, yes I am reading the latest Robert Jordan book.
But sneakily, because I really don't want anyone on the bus to strike up a conversation with me about it.
(Spoilers below through page 544)
(Spoilers below through page 544)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)