diversity

Emily Nagoski's Cool Insight: Without Diversity There Can be No "Average"

Tue, 2011-11-08 13:56

Hard-core science-of-sex researcher and professor Emily Nagoski says this about the (big!) difference between social science (which rocks) and stereotyping (which doesn't.)

[The] science [of] populations has no particular meaning for individuals. Like: On average, humans are 5’6″, brown-eyed, and east Asian. Should I therefore think, “Phew, I’m 5’6″, but crap, I’ve got blue eyes and I’m this northern European mutt! There’s something wrong with me!” No.

Or should I think, “I’m not brown-eyed and I’m not east Asian, so therefore that’s BULLSHIT!” No. It’s not bullshit just because it’s not true about ME; it’s not TRYING to be true about me, it can only be true about the POPULATION.

No, the sentence, “On average, humans are 5’6″, brown-eyed, and east Asian,” is both true and fair. FROM SPACE (according to the metaphor). At the largest scale.

What’s not true is, “Every individual human who ever existed was 5’6″, brown-eyed, and east Asian.” At the human-level scale, that’s simply wrong.

And making a LAW that says, “People are 5’6″, brown-eyed, and east Asian; to be anything else is against the law,” is both untrue and unjust – a.k.a., ACTUAL “bullshit.”

And I want everyone to be able to tell the difference between those things, between science, what’s true about you, and bullshit.

Source: Emily Nagoski :: sex nerd

Her bottom line on diversity and variation is, basically, that without variability the word "average" even a valid concept! For instance on average all human being have been dead for something like eighty five years! And if there weren't so many of us recently the average human would have been dead a heck of a lot longer than that. Thank goodness for variability, eh?

Compounding Interest in Diversity

Thu, 2009-03-12 12:20

Scott Adams of Dilbert.com Blog proposes a startling hypothesis… that among other things would confirm a lot of data about the demographics in vibrant vs. stagnant parts of the U.S. economy.

Single people are free to take more economic risks than married people. It makes me wonder if there is a correlation between the average age of marriage in a particular area and its economy.

My hypothesis is that places where marriage happens early, by custom or religion, will also be the places with the slowest rate of development. In such places there might be fewer entrepreneurs and everyone would take fewer risks.

...

Name three vibrant entrepreneurial countries where people also marry young.

Read the quote in context here.

It’s often proposed that creative people are drawn to more ethnic, gender, orientation, and lifestyle tolerant, and more just generally culturally diverse areas and that the resulting concentrations of creativity leads to increased innovation, which leads to increased prosperity, which leads to an influx of more creative people, rinse and repeat.

This is said to be one of the reasons places like New York, the Bay Area, and Seattle appear to thrive while infrastructurally equivalent places like Cleveland, Phoenix, or Houston. (Interesting counterexample would be the Provo Valley in Utah, which is suitable for socially conservative but intellectually/technologically agile people can land.)

I can’t put my finger on a specific citation but see for-instance on tolerance for immigration. Other studies, books, and articles extend the thesis to the economic benefits of tolerance for gender, orientation, cultural, and educational diversity.

Anyway, Adams’ suggestion adds another layer: not only are creative people drawn to such nexuses, because they can afford to take the risks and ride out the ups and downs of intellectual ferment they don’t just benefit from it they help sustain it.

Making E Pluribus Unum Cool Again

Wed, 2008-11-05 18:59


Photo by Flickr user gingerbydesign. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Hmm. I haven’t danced in the streets… I mean literally dancing in a street… in I don’t know how long. Even though it was just my partner, my nine-year-old, and me, and even though we were the only ones out at that time of night, and even though we were just holding hands and jumping in a ring-around-the-rosey circle singing “Obama won, Obama won” to the tune of… well… ring around the rosey it felt pretty good.

During MSNBC’s coverage I loved Rachel Maddow’s takedown of Pat Buchannan when he had the gall to say McCain lost because of the financial crisis. I also have nothing but scorn for the “credit to his race”/“credit to our tolerance” crowd for trying to pigeon-hole President-Elect Obama’s success as nothing but a signal about race. (Again, Rachel Maddow’s body language and facial expression was priceless when Tweety Matthews kept going on about how swell it all was.) One needn’t pretend to be colorblind, however, to appreciate not just the many parts but the whole of the person who has crafted this victory and who inspired not just this class or that religion or the other race or the other national heritage or this graduating class or that city, state, or region, or this persuasion or that orientation or the other expectation.

Instead they were inspired by what he ultimately believes in: a principle that guided… and also sometimes goaded… Americans from 1776 till 1956.

(Emphasis mine.)

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

...

It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

...

This is our moment. This is our time – to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American Dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth – that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope, and where we are met with cynicism, and doubt, and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people…

Yes We Can.

Source: Last night in Grant Park.

E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one,” a principle without which “honor diversity” is a slogan at best and at worse a mere euphemism for condescension.

And if I am ashamed that California’s Proposition 8 passed, and Proposition 102 in Arizona, Proposition 2 in Florida, and Initiative 1 in Arkansas, and I am ashamed, I take heart that the generations that passed it are also passing away, and that those who opposed those initiatives… the ones under 30, and maybe 35… loom large. And they are not one man from Kenyan/Kansan stock, not someone who edited his law review, who attended Rev. Wright’s church for 22 years, who left a white-shoe law firm for community organizing on the South Side, who’s raising two daughters with his partner in marriage, who lived in Hawaii and Indonesia, New York and New England, Chicago and now, soon, the White House. They’re the everybodies of every kind under who’s sufferance a President Obama will remain President in four years. Or not. They’re the everybodys, of every kind, to whom every politician will eventually have to answer. And so if the candidate balked or quailed rather than endorse Prop 8, well, I don’t have to have faith in just one man to help forge a more perfect union if I can have faith in those he inspires to forge it with him… inspires all of us to say “yes we can.”

Lest I dwell too long on one disappointment may wax both patriotic and nostalgic for a moment more and remember another patriotic couplet who’s scansion was also divided… as it divided us… in the 1950s**.

One nation, indivisible
With liberty and justice for all

I always liked the sound of that too. Fingers crossed.

And finally, since I began this post as a recitation of my impressions, I’d like to close with a few more.

Early this morning when I ran down to my children’s bus stop to deliver a forgotten lunchbox I saw my partner, who’d walked down to see them off, step into the street to greet a neighbor with a leaping high five.

A moment later, again before eight in the morning, another neighbor threw open his upstairs window with a huge “woo-hoo!”

I met a gay friend, a man around my age, who looked terrible, his face puffy, his eyes tired and when I asked if he was ok he said he felt wonderful, that he’d wept for joy for hours with friends last night after the speeches.

All day on the streets I’ve seen people smiling,

From all around the country, and all around the world, I’ve read post after post on sex blogs, food blogs, political blogs, nerd blogs, feminist blogs, church blogs and travel blogs, single-issue blogs and encyclopedic blogs, famous blogs and obscure, active and near-gone-dark and each in their own way they’ve all said mostly one good thing.

Out of many…

Update: Of all things even Mickey flipping Kaus gets the attempted confinement-to-race framing, landing like an absolute ton of bricks on McCain’s concession speech

He went on and on—as if Obama’s victory was all about race and not about a rejection of McCain or Republican governance. As if even if it had to do with race its rejection of bigotry was mainly of interest to African Americans as opposed to all Americans. As if the most important characteristic of the man most Americans chose over McCain was his skin color, etc. ... I know I’m overreacting, but McCain’s tone seemed almost tribal. ... Maybe the problem was his distancing, clanging choice of pronoun—“theirs.” Not “yours,” let alone “ours.”

Amazingly he said it here.

Good for him.

[** I’m not knocking religion here when I say I prefer our original motto and the original Pledge of Allegance. I would point out, though, that the acts of Congress that enshrined “In God We Trust” and “One nation, under God, indivisible” were introduced at the same moments that most Conservatives claim America generally started going to Hell. Nor am I suggesting that by harking back to pre-1950s language President-Elect Obama’s religious faith is somehow a front. Quite the opposite. His choice of the words “she’s gone home” when his grandmother died — words spoken more often in heartland churches than madrassas or big city churches — suggest confidence in his faith, and therefore grace, and therefore no need to bluster or intimidate or shut out. —fl]

History Lessons From a Dead White Non-Male German

Tue, 2008-04-22 23:32

When I studied social theory and political philosophy in college I read Marx and I studied Locke and Hobbes, Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, and Milton Friedman, I studied Horkheimer and Adorno, Weber and Veblen, Hegel and Foucalut, Shakespeare and Melville, Erickson and Freud, and all manner of dead white guys. But the thinker who kept emerging through course after course, the one I kept turning back to, the one who inspired me, the one who (uh oh) got me in the habit of run-on sentences, cryptic constructions, and parentheses by the bucketful… the one I’d accidentally started reading just before I began college, and continued to read after graduation, was another dead, white, but not male European, Hannah Arendt.

I learned so much about the world from her, and so much about humanity, and so much, especially, about America which she saw through sane, clear, sometimes hopeful but also often frustrated eyes.

She’s the one who taught me about the aspirations of the American revolutionaries — often breathtakingly illiberal, prejudiced, peculiar, and pecuniary privileged white males who, nevertheless, deliberately sewed the seeds of tolerance, inclusion, and liberty that we’re still inventing new applications for.

If I could find my copy (too many of my books are in boxes waiting to go up on new shelves) I’d cite the exact figure — I want to say Adams but I’m not sure which and besides it might have been someone else — but whoever it was said of the risk of revolution

Let us be soldiers and politicians
So that our children may be farmers and craftsmen
So that their children may become poets, painters, philosophers, and lovers

And no, that’s not exactly verbatim, but it’s absolutely in the spirit.

And I bring this up because of a note from Jessica Valenti of Feministing over the goaded-from-the-outside “generational” battle that’s being waged at the moment by largely-but-not-exclusively my generation 2nd-Wave feminists and largely-but-obviously-not-entirely Valenti’s generation 3rd-Wave feminists over most recently whether support for Senator Clinton is optional or mandatory.

But instead of complexity and nuance, the next piece we see on young feminists and the election is little more than a gleeful screed against all young women. Debra Dickerson writes:

I oversimplify, but so do young women who inherited what we mothers fought for and now want us to disappear so our girls can go wild and pole dance without feeling all guilty. Caricatures work both ways, missy.


She goes on to call young feminists “honey,” “chicks,” “childish,” and greedy. All in one post!

Read the quote in context here.

That 3rd-wave feminists risk forgetting the awesome obstacles and the incredible fight their sometimes-literal mothers fought for so that they could become lawyers in lipstick and business leaders with Brazilians is dooming one’s self to repeat history. That 2nd-wave feminists fail to acknowledge the landscape they created for their sometimes-literal daughters, and the new opportunities as well as obstacles those newcomers face, risks… mere perpetuation of history.

The irony, of course, is that immediately after the American revolution the one-time vanguard of Adams’s promise to future generations — rightly proud beyond measure of their accomplishments… immediately started carping that… their children were only farmers and merchants and their grandchildren only poets and artists. So it’s only fitting that the revolutionaries of feminism, no less proud of no lesser accomplishments — should do likewise. That is not, however, history repeating itself it is, as Hannah Arendt taught me, just part of the human condition. Future generations, however, will acknowledge and vindicate both feminists of the 2nd- and 3rd-waves. It would be nice if those of us alive today gave thought to showing those generations how it’s done.

Knitting Raveled Sleeves of Care

Tue, 2008-04-22 22:07

Non-digressive anecdote: I used to be a pretty good knitter. I worked in a multi-team environment where, during design phases especially, you could spend ten hours a day in meetings! Don’t get me wrong, they were often astonishingly productive meetings that resulted in fantastic designs and strategies, but they did go on quite a bit. A lot of the techies learned to while away the time, and to suppress our often geek tendencies towards volubility, by knitting.

Now I arrived a bit late to the knitting scene, but it looked like a lot of fun so one colleague set me up with some needles and yarn, then another showed me how to knit and I did that for a while. But straight knit stiches, row after row (a.k.a. stockinette stitch) are useful for, well, stockings, I guess, but boring. So another friend showed me how to purl. And that’s where everything started falling apart. Instead of easily creating rows of neat, loose, stretchy fabric I constantly struggled to knit murderously tight, crossed stitches.

So I talked to yet another knitter who looked at how I was doing it and said “oh, you’re knitting wrong, do it this way.” No improvement. Someone else said “you’re purling wrong, do it this way

Finally someone who I kept mentioning I was having problems else just grabbed me, pulled me into her office, and said “Ok, I’m going to be your instructor, I’m going to show you how to make your knits match your purls. All the people you’re talking to aren’t wrong, but they’re not giving you consistent instructions.” Half an hour later I was off to the races.

I bring this up because political blogger Kathy G (who doesn’t count even though she’s brilliant) of The G Spot points out some distinctions about feminism that have a fair amount of bearing on the various race/class/preference/Seal-Press/Clinton wars.

Tom S. at Rust Belt Intellectual has a lovely post up about the unfinished business of feminism. He argues that the right and the media have caused us to misunderstand feminism because they’ve focused a disproportionate amount of attention on feminist elites — theatrical activists and the like. But he and says more attention should be paid to what’s been called “the other women’s movement,” aka working class feminism:

These feminists defined their struggle primarily in economic, not cultural terms. They represented blue and pink-collar women who, by the mid-twentieth century, were entering the paid workforce in increasing numbers, despite the pervasive rhetoric about the normative family headed by male breadwinners.

For these blue and pink collar women:

feminism really mattered. Against the odds, working-class feminists raised their wages and undermined sexist hiring practices, even if both victories were incomplete. Working-class feminists demanded better benefits and affordable child care and fought for family-friendly workplace policies. The feminist workplace revolution is still unfinished. And in fundamental respects it has been rolled back in the last two decades by biparisan indifference to the issues that matter most for ordinary working people, male and female alike.

Read all about it here.

It seems to me the first mistake outsiders make is to assume (as I did while learning to knit) that “Teh Feminismism” is one thing that’s done only one way. That’s not necessarily the biggest mistake anyone could make since feminist interests overlap on oh, say, let’s 80% of the issues. What’s not so hot is that since it’s never the same 80% of issues. Lesbian separatists have some pretty critical issues related to, well, radical consent. Elite and nominally “elite” feminists who are either born into the college/academia/profession track or test well into it have some other issues that are, especially, related to “glass ceiling” problems. There are issues that the one in four women (one in four!!!) who’ve been victims of straight-up sexual assault, rape, and incest hold some truths to be self-evident in ways that — no matter how hard or well others imagine — others can’t imagine. Feminists in poverty or struggling to rise out of it, feminists who have to put up with the persistent din of “what’s with the headscarf/dark-skin/second-language-dominant/“lookit she’s crippled” don’t have a lot of patience for condescension no matter how well-intentioned. And however many men there are who see feminism as pointing the way out of a pretty stultifying, sometimes horrifying situation for everybody and not just women have issues where they’re not even sure what to call themselves, let alone necessarily comfortable trying to distinguish between all the other kinds of feminism.

But here’s the thing. “The personal is the political” kind of demands that there’s more than one way to do it. That’s a big change from the days when rich women and poor women, native born and newly-arrived died in childbirth, were economically dependent on custodial males, were disregarded as universally second class, and were subject to extraordinary coercion whenever they bucked the system. Sure, some of those have changed and some have remained the same but circumstances for the class “woman” have changed enough that conditions of other classes are emerging.

It’s not all stockinette stitch anymore. It’s not all one color anymore. It’s not one-size-fits-all anymore. And yeah, that’s annoying if you’re still going by the old patterns, and if you’re still invested in the old way. But it’s not wrong that there’s more going on. Sophistication and success breed diversity so it’s a good thing. Unless one lets it divide and conquer one.

User login