Laden's Maasaichism

In his third marriage post, Greg Laden relates a generic--ostensibly composite--tale of a young Maasai woman cast into wedlock.  Laden portrays the Maasai behavior in an extremely unattractive light; he provides the reader no information as to his sources beyond 'according to what I’ve read about them and been told by them on my visits there.'  It's an incredibly bizarre post--offensive, even--and indeed it would be a wonderful thing were some experts on Maasai culture to comment upon its plausibility.

To get some off-the-cuff informed reaction, I asked a Maasai blogger for his take on Laden's post.  He replied:

I am sorry to say its not true in the Maa people who live in Kenya,

The bride in my culture will never walk a lone she will be taken from her home by the Groom with the best Man, in some case women will meet the bride but will not assault her or mock.

As far as I am concern she will be given a lot of gifts this will include cows as well as Sheep.

May be this happen in sub Maa tribe out side Kenya where I am from but still sound like a very well cooked story.

Beyond Laden's non-contextualized exoticization of the Maasai, the post is genuinely perplexing:  What general cultural lesson is Laden attempting to bring to readers' attention?  Marital practices are extremely varied, globally?  Does he really think this type of description makes such a point?  Or does he simply seek to impress us with his academic status, as the type person who's made multiple trips to sub-Saharan Africa?

In Laden's three marriage posts (that I've read), I've yet to come across a single interesting insight, amid the chest-thumping, 'credential-establishing' fluff.

Extra-maritally, Laden publishes a great number of posts, all quite dull I'm afraid.  Consider yourself lucky to have Gavin Sullivan on this trying detail.  Laden has recently linked to an anti-troll clip.  If you participate much in the online exchange of ideas, you'd be surprised how little pushback you'll receive--in simply calling anyone with whom you disagree as 'a troll.'  I wonder how much credibility one might gain were, say, a Harvard Ph.D to attempt such a trick, within an academic conference:  

All people who ask me difficult questions--and people who say critical things about the words I publish--are ill-willed and evil, so I can summarily dismiss their statements and malign their characters.  Die, trolls!

Quite a number of bloggers assert their moral superiority in precisely this vulgar manner.  The blog-reading public shouldn't fall for such malarkey.

La Cristiada

Hello Fr. Rudolphi,

After attending 5:15 Mass this past Saturday, I was handed the church bulletin which included the item displayed above, encouraging parishioners to consider seeing For Greater Glory.  I haven't seen the film yet.  I just read the Wikipedia article about The Cristero War--which our bulletin describes as 'a war by the people of Mexico against the atheistic and anti-Catholic Mexican government.'

The bulletin's description oversimplifies Mexican history quite significantly.  During the 19th Century, the Catholic Church owned over half of the property in Mexico.  When the Catholic Church has had great power in any country, it has tended to abuse that power.  In Mexico for example, the Church controlled the education system, effectively preventing citizens from gaining access to unbiased information about the Catholic Church--and about the many historical falsehoods that institution seeks to perpetuate.

A Constitution was eventually established in Mexico aimed at drastically reining in the Catholic Church, so as to reduce its overarching political power.  Some of the restrictions put in place then, to break the Church's stranglehold over Mexican society, were draconian and excessive.

People who wanted to restore the Catholic Church to its former position fought the Cristero War against the government of Mexico.  The US government provided arms and air support to the Mexican state, assisting its atheist president in putting down the revolt.  The Mexican Catholic bishops at no point voiced official support for the rebellion.

After Mexico's atheist president Plutarco Elias Calles' term ended, he was replaced by his more Church-accommodating predecessor Álvaro Obregón--who was promptly assassinated by a Catholic fanatic, just after his 1928 election.  Mexico then found a new president, and with US diplomatic assistance, peace was negotiated between the Catholic Church and the Mexican state.  Some rebels felt sold-out, as they weren't represented during the war-ending negotiations--and vowed to continue fighting.  The Church threatened them with excommunication, and hostilities soon came to an end.

As a side note, I think considerable social change cannot help but take place within the St. Patrick's community during your tenure.  One suggestion I advocate:  Allowing parishioners to comment on bulletin articles, online--and to submit articles of their own authorship to the publication.  Parishioners at St. Patrick's are too often unaware of the great diversity of interpretations and beliefs embodied within the community; the relentlessly top-down approach is extremely stultifying.

Warmest regards,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie

Amalgamation

Greg Laden--Ph.D., anthropology, Harvard and self-professed 'expert on marriage'--has decided to impart some wisdom on that topic this week.  He begins with an ultradubious assertion, backed with nothing:

...I may be more like a hunter-gatherer than a “modern” Westerner, as the practice among the former is to treat marriage as very important and each partner in the marriage as a critical and similarly empowered member of the contract, while the practice among the latter has been to see women as the man’s property and to form economic, social, and sexual alliances as needed outside the marriage.

Hunter-gather societies have occurred in diverse iterations--with a vast array of kinship arrangements.  We cannot in fact generalize about the attitudes of hunter-gathers--that they 'treat marriage as very important and each partner in the marriage as a critical and similarly empowered member of the contract.'  That's bullshit--and cringe-inducing that Laden sees himself as sharing the hunter-gather sensibility pertaining to marriage.  Eek!

Do modern Westerners indeed 'see women as the man’s property and to form economic, social, and sexual alliances as needed outside the marriage'?  I just asked three random modern Westerners--and can't find any who believe Laden's got their marriage views right.  Does he capture your attitude accurately?

Laden frequently resorts to trivially true sentences:

Who is in on the deal and how they work together to get the job done matters.

And he puts forward a lot of non-informative mumbo-jumbo:

Marriage isn’t simple. It is about social relationships, economics, child raising, sex, power, and all sorts of other things. It is important enough that The Patriarchy has owned it, in Western Society, for centuries.

So 'The Patriarchy' has owned marriage in 'Western Society' for centuries, though not in non-Western societies?  And what is The Patriarchy, when we're discussing, say, 1800 England--when average life expectancy hovered somewhere around 36 years and per capita GDP was less than one-tenth what it is today?

By The Patriarchy I'd be curious to learn what portion of adult society would be included, in Laden's understanding--in that England of 1800?  A large portion, even among male Britons, had scant 'ownership' of the institution of marriage then, no?

Anthropological Expectations

At the Minnesota Progressive Project, Greg Laden writes concerning marriage.  He notes that in the Old Testament, polygyny is one of the most common marital arrangements, but at some point within the Christian era monogamous marriage became accepted practice.  How and why did this change come about?  Laden presents one hypothesis:

...[A] deal [was] made between older men who were sending men off to war and those younger soldiers, to preserve their access to the up and coming crop of women.

If indeed monogamous marriage became the cultural norm sometime after Jesus' arrival, I really doubt the Laden-mentioned theory in any way explains it.  Polygyny is widespread--and then men are conscripted for far-off war.  The warriors are resistant, and negotiate for an end to polygyny, so that they'll preserve their access to the up and coming crop of women.  A sufficiently implausible theory to require some reasons, prior to our accepting, no?  Laden continues:

Either way, under the older or the newer system, Western marriage is mostly about the ways in which men own or control women and women's reproductive activities.

Looking back on the pre-modern world, we often forget the extremely difficult life prospects faced by average folks, which included considerable privation and risk.  I'm not yet convinced that 'Western marriage' was defined by female subjugation, any moreso than were the marital practices prevailing elsewhere.

When people say "Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman" or anything along those lines, that sounds really stupid to an anthropologist such as my self... So, for the last several months and over the next several months, I and my fellow anthropologists find ourselves in the position of enduring people saying the dumbest things about stuff we know about.  That is frustrating.

Laden gives voice, then, to a significant anthropological error.  When the anthropologist studies the beliefs of individuals which 'explain' their prevailing social institutions, she does not expect to hear probing exercises in historical materialism.  She expects superstition and just-so stories.  The anthropologist does not guffaw upon hearing subjects who misunderstand aspects of their own culture's history:  Rigorous, non-mythical, non-nationalistic, non-ethnocentric historical thinking does not frequently occur, in the field.

That said, within my own family tree, the monogamous heterosexual ideal does seem to have been prevailing for some generations--and I'll bet many Minnesotans notice something similar, when viewing their own family historical-photos collections.  Male-female monogamous-appearing marriage does indeed predominate, even within my mystifying family's history.  A non-stupid member of my family could, with reason, believe Marriage is traditionally between a man and a woman.

In the upcoming election, Minnesotans will vote on whether to add a heterosexuals-only 'marriage amendment' to the state constitution.  I strenuously oppose this idea.  On the larger question of allowing gay marriage, let's be honest:  We are indeed proposing a significant change, with relation to the social practice most of us have known for some generations.

Pushing Eject

Imagine:  A high-status blogger bans a commenter--informing the world the miscreant is a troll, a thread derailler, a comment hog and a narcissist.  The blogger provides no evidence backing the claim; the decision is unreviewable and final.

Who's right?  In a troll accusation, is the blogger usually to be trusted?

...do not ever tell a blogger who to ban or not ban. If you think you can do that, you don’t know crap about blogging. It is entirely up to the blogger to make that call, and it is never appropriate to demand an explanation or shame a blogger for their action. Every single comment that is allowed on a post is there by special permission. If someone wants to have a totally open comment policy, then that is their (very irresponsible) choice.

I find I hold a somewhat more skeptical view of human nature than does Greg Laden.  Many writers don't like to hear viewpoints which conflict with their own, even when politely expressed.  When we observe a comment at odds with our own perfect ideology, we are far more apt to label it all of those things listed up above; in addition, inertia leads us to fail to appreciate positive attributes contained within a critical comment--and to feel hostility for the contributor.

Like everybody else, bloggers frequently have ego investment in their all-knowingness and feel affronted when faced with contradictory ideas.

When shunning others, people often assert dishonest reasoning as a means of convincing themselves--and asserting to others--our inner immaculateness.  We are hierarchical primates, and the temptation to status-flex--and to shove bipedal obstacles out of our paths, when costless--is often irresistible.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not arguing that banning commenters is invariably bad.  I simply approach each ejection on its own merits, recognizing that bloggers and commenters tend to be of similar ethical and ideological fallibility.  When a blogger I care about bans a commenter, I am interested in assessing the legitimacy of the decision, and try not to prejudge the matter, independent of the specifics.

When I see a blogger banning a commenter for stupid reasons--or when a blogger bans a commenter for no stated reason--I see no evil in politely asking the blogger to revisit it.  If Gavin Sullivan's publicly-voiced displeasure elicits extreme shame in the blogger, I will make every effort to conceal my joy.

I'll give Greta Christina--who I would much like to consider a friend--the last word:

I do, however, moderate my blog, and have guidelines as to what constitutes acceptable conversation here. Among the behaviors that will get people warned or banned: thread derailing, comment hogging, making comment threads all about themselves, not respecting my right to moderate my blog, and treating the fact that I do moderate my blog as censorship or a violation of their rights. Gavin Sullivan has done all of this, in an impressively short time.

Fish and Chips Paper

A staple Eden Prairie News report is the story profiling residents dealing with serious illnesses.  The articles never probe deeply into the people's experiences, relationships or emotions; the inch-deep formula is quite dependable:  Bob got cancer.  Cancer was tough.  When I had cancer, I prayed a lot.  Ours is an awesome God.  Everyone was very helpful.  When I had chemotherapy, my hair fell out. I'm sure happy I didn't die.  I'm going to march in the anti-cancer parade this year.

The subjects are often surprisingly cooperative, unquestioningly agreeing that their pre-illness lives were of no legitimate interest to newspaper readers--that their chemotherapy or mastectomy 'obviously' justify reportorial investigation.

Residing in Eden Prairie, we've already achieved paradise--goes the editorial psychology.  The only complaint one may reasonably harbor would be against death-hastening illness.

In Eden Prairie, all is known and right living is self-evident.  The beliefs and struggles of opinionated people aren't newsworthy:  Good citizens like Eden Prairie--and don't raise a ruckus.

Having no interest in distinguishing good writing from bad--that would be pretentious--the Eden Prairie News is ever happy to profile our self-published authors, especially when they don't appear to hold any interesting viewpoints.

Greta Christina, McCarthyite

Yesterday I surfed upon Greta Christina's Schroedinger’s Threat post--and learned that Ophelia Benson claims to have received 'threats' pertaining to her attending TAM.  I read the email published by Benson and--while it is unpleasant and stupid--I identify no 'threat' within it.

In her post, Christina notes Benson now acknowledges the email 'seems not to have been intended as a threat — it seems to have been a sincerely well-meant warning...'

If I receive a missive which I consider includes threats and then, upon consideration, decide its writer did not intend it to communicate any threat--that it is 'sincere' and 'well-meant'--then, problem solved, right?

Not by a long shot!

By way of backstory, there's a lively atheist movement afoot, virtual and meated.  Within New Atheism, one misguided, arch interpretation of the Rebecca Watson 'elevatorgate' incident has been deemed infallible and undiscussible--a party shibboleth.

If you disagree with Watson's elevatorgate yarn, atheism's mob will not rest until you have been declared untouchable.

A corollary posits that when a woman receives an email she perceives--however temporarily--as menacing, the woman is granted an unending interpretive monopoly on the document.  If you read it and find no threat therein--even if the recipient herself has acknowledged, upon reflection, that no threat was intended--it is An Attack Upon Every Woman's Dignity for you to suggest that the matter may now be dropped.

So I left a comment on Christina's post:

The writer received a clumsily-written, weird, explicitly non-threatening email.

So apparently we’re re-working elevatorgate. Yawn.

In ‘elevatorgate,’ an offer of coffee was kookily interpreted as a grave attack upon female dignity. For sharing my viewpoint, Richard Dawkins was savaged by–among others–PZ Myers.

We miss you, Hitch.

Within minutes, commenters are lamenting my condesplaining--i.e. 'viewing a feminist-labeled perspective as unconvincing.'  Discussion is forbidden and closed on elevatorgate-tangential ideology:  Hearing a person dissenting in this area, the flock's job is to vilify and silence the critic--abjuring any substantive engagement, since that would suggest skepticism to be legitimate.

I'm then accused of 'misrepresenting facts'--though no factual error is described.  Soon Christina jumps in to warn me not to comment further, while numerous minions assassinate my character, eliciting not a word from the blogger.  Commenters insist I am incorrect--Christina did not mean to suggest I may not defend myself, within her forum.  A moment later Christina announces she's muzzling me, to protect her readers and decency.

Read the thread yourself here.

Lie to me

David Thul is running for the Minnesota House; his Respect true war valor, not song-and-dance routines was published in today's Strib.  A television singing contestant claims to have been seriously injured while serving with the Minnesota National Guard in Afghanistan and it appears his story is false.

Thul's intro sounded interesting--as I have recently called attention to the false stories 'Vietnam War hero' Bill Schiebler has publicly proclaimed and to our community's willed ignorance concerning Randy Voas' tragic loss.

Since my Schiebler posts, I've been treated to a pleasant meal with my subject.  I'd randomly grabbed one of Schiebler's lurid Vietnam tales--the one in which, in 1965, Schiebler personally stops a deranged Puerto Rican who's killed four African American comrades--and attempted to fact-check it.  No one who should know has heard of the event, as it happens.

During our 'supper,' Schiebler came clean with me--admitting the name of the Puerto Rican killer he'd provided me, during our telephone interview, is not truthful.  He now claims he knows the soldier's name but will not provide it.  In addition, he clarifies he's not sure how many men were murdered that day:  It might have been as few as one or as many as five, out of a total of no more than 45 men who reported to Schiebler.

While something of a professional laurel-recipient, Schiebler is a nice fellow; his Vietnam recollections cannot be taken seriously.

Researching my Schiebler posts, I listened closely to a lengthy interview with him.  The stories he presents therein sound dubious, so I contacted the program's producer--who, upon learning of my skepticism, reacted with outrage and disgust.  I contacted the Eden Prairie veterans--who made it clear they don't care whether Bill Schiebler's Vietnam stories are or aren't truthful.

As with Eden Prairie's ongoing Randy Voas fairytale, nobody--including Karla Wennerstrom and Paul Groessel--cares about honesty when publishing within the Schiebler-Voas spectrum.  The feeling is that, in this area, the public appreciates patriotic-sounding falsehood and doesn't want to be overburdened with information of a factual nature.  Thul writes:

As it happens, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently pondering the Stolen Valor Act, which makes Poe's alleged actions a serious crime. The act makes it a felony to represent oneself, either verbally or in writing, as having been awarded any medal authorized by Congress, such as the Purple Heart. The law has been challenged as a violation of free speech, with the argument being that making exaggerated claims about military service doesn't directly harm anyone, and is in effect a victimless crime.

But military veterans will tell you otherwise. Every time someone is found to be telling falsehoods about military service, every time a politician exaggerates his or her record, every time a down-on-his-luck individual claims to have been decorated for heroism on the battlefield, veterans as a whole suffer.

Having put Thul's assertion to several rigorous tests, I have drawn the opposite conclusion:  Military veterans--in Eden Prairie, at least--don't care very much when brethren tell falsehoods about their military service.  The local media will actively lend a hand, withholding key information from citizens:  Almost nobody in Eden Prairie is aware of any of the central facts surrounding Randy Voas' crash, this blog being the only local outlet which has discussed the official accident report.

We swim in a sea of hypocrisy; within the great mass of public commentary swirling around out there, many publish bullshit knowing they'll never be asked to back up what they say.  When we talk about veterans and heroism, lying is completely accepted and indeed, veterans themselves welcome it.