Greg Krehbiel's Crowhill Weblog - Content

crow
Thoughts on life — News, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and ethics

Other Crowhill sites:
Crowhill PublishingGreg's Book Publishing blog
Greg's Marketing blogGreg's Home Brewing blog




The fight between feminists and trans-folk

by Greg Krehbiel on 29 July 2014

This is a strange new world. What Is a Woman? The dispute between radical feminism and transgenderism.

Trans women say that they are women because they feel female—that, as some put it, they have women’s brains in men’s bodies. Radical feminists reject the notion of a “female brain.” They believe that if women think and act differently from men it’s because society forces them to, requiring them to be sexually attractive, nurturing, and deferential.

This is very confusing.

From the feminist perspective there are not male and female brains, only human brains. So from that perspective you might suppose that being male or female has to depend on your biology, but apparently not. Being female seems to depend on having endured society’s efforts to force you into a female role.

I will not call a male “she”; thirty-two years of suffering in this androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the title “woman”; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he dares to think he understands our pain? No, in our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.

Wow.

Modern “progressives” will probably reject the idea that “gender” is determined by genes, but then they have to decide what, exactly, is determinative: your genitals, or how you were raised, or how you feel at the moment.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-07-29  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Let Obama play golf and let’s hire a caretaker president

by Greg Krehbiel on 29 July 2014

President Obama’s competence problem is worse than it looks, says Chris Cillizza. And it looks bad.

I think he’s set a record in screwing up the world. Russia, the Middle East and the southern border are all a mess — all at once. He should get a prize for that. Next on the agenda we’ll pick a fight with China. Or maybe invade Canada.

You may think I’m not being fair. Those problems aren’t his fault. He didn’t force Hamas to fire at Israel, or ask ISIS to take over parts of Syria and Iraq, or cause the Iraqi government to fail, or make Putin take a gambit in the Ukraine, or … well, maybe he did invite people to storm our southern border. At least that is debatable.

The point is that he wasn’t engaged enough to stop it, or competent enough to deal with it.

The U.S. has to be involved in the world. As much as isolationism appeals to me — and it really appeals to me — it’s simply too dangerous. The world is full of very bad people, and it’s a safer place when U.S. power is keeping things in order.

Obama is clearly unfit for the job and he needs to be sidelined. He can keep going to fundraisers and making his snide, sarcastic comments. He’s good at that. But for the sake of the country we need somebody else running things — the way everybody said Cheney ran the Bush administration.

The amateur we have in the White House right now is simply too incompetent for the office.

-- 1 comment  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-07-29  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Let illegals in, but no minimum wage?

by Greg Krehbiel on 28 July 2014

If we’re not going to apply our immigration laws to the people pouring over the southern border, why don’t we say, “Fine, you can come in, but the minimum wage laws don’t apply to you”?

I’m not being serious, but it would be interesting if somebody in a position of influence offered some new idea, rather than just spouting the same talking points we’ve been hearing for weeks.

That was one thing I liked about Jesse Ventura. He was a bit of a nut, but he would say interesting things and give new ideas. Now it seems politicians are too constrained by their handlers.

-- 5 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-07-28  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Recycling and those stupid brown bags

by Greg Krehbiel on 28 July 2014

The local tyrannical government has decided that grass clippings can’t go in the old-style plastic bags any more. They have to go in brown paper bags or in specially marked cans. This will undoubtedly save the world from something.

The real goal here is to transfer costs from the government to the consumer (the plastic bags were harder to process) and, of course, to annoy us — because the more they annoy us about environmental things the more we get our consciousness raised, and that makes us all better people. Just thinking about the environment is a sign of sanctity. It’s the modern version of prayer.

Also, government seeks to annoy us simply because it can. I know, you thought recycling was to meet some environmental goal. Ha ha.

This past weekend was the first time I had to mow the lawn and put the clippings in these stupid bags. Here’s why they’re awful.

  • The mouth of the bag isn’t large enough for the grass catcher, so dumping the grass into the bag is a pain in the rear. Grass spills all over the place.
  • There’s no easy way to close these things. The old bags you could just spin around a couple times and tie the top into a knot.
  • Since the bags are paper they are not waterproof, so you can’t leave them outside.
  • They are far more expensive than the old lawn bags.

But … they’ll save the planet and make us all better people in the process.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-07-28  ::  Greg Krehbiel





“Progress” towards “gender equality”?

by Greg Krehbiel on 28 July 2014

This article — Stop Fem-Splaining: What ‘Women Against Feminism’ Gets Right — mentions “progress toward real gender equality” as if that is something that everyone should certainly be for. As if it’s a fundamental value. Only a Neanderthal would oppose it.

Well, call me a Neanderthal. I don’t consider “gender equality” to be a reasonable goal. Women and men are not the same, and efforts to treat them the same in all situations do not constitute “progress.”

There are some things where women and men should be treated the same. E.g., they should have an equal right to face their accuser, a right to a trial, etc.

But there are some areas where it might not be appropriate to treat women and men the same, e.g., registering for the draft, time off after having a child, etc.

There is no need to force a misguided “equality” on every issue based on some counter-factual ideological agenda.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-07-28  ::  Greg Krehbiel





The argument from lack of imagination

by Greg Krehbiel on 28 July 2014

Or lack of research. Or … just thinking your perspective is the only one that matters.

In any case, I saw this on a blog today.

[the] inability to imagine an effective argument is confused with the nonexistence of such arguments

I see this all the time. After a person has spent no time at all looking for alternative views, “What else could it possibly be?” is confused with “this must be the only option.”

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-07-28  ::  Greg Krehbiel





No cease fire with Hamas

by Greg Krehbiel on 25 July 2014

I agree with this article.

Israel must be permitted to crush Hamas

-- 9 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-07-25  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Partisanship is on the increase as the left goes further and further to the left

by Greg Krehbiel on 25 July 2014

There’s a lot of talk about how the Republican Party has become more extreme — e.g., that not even Ronald Reagan would pass muster with modern Republicans.

That’s probably true, but the same has been happening to the Democratic Party. We just don’t hear as much about it.

See Blue Crush: How the left took over the Democratic Party.

Democratic activists and elected officials have only become more liberal over the last two decades.

The reality is that we’ve become more polarized. The right is righter and the left is lefter.

I think this is the inevitable result of government getting too big and trying to do too much. If all you’re doing is keeping the roads clear of bandits and the seas free of pirates, there isn’t much to argue about. But when somebody wants to “fundamentally transform America,” there’s lots and lots to argue about.

If you want less partisanship and less bickering then you want a smaller government that does less.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-07-25  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Downton Abbey: Rose MacClare, Jack Ross, racism, classism and “good matches”

by Greg Krehbiel on 24 July 2014

In Downton Anney, Rose MacClare is the underage daughter of Scottish parents who are part of the aristocracy. (I didn’t keep track of titles. They’re something-or-others.)

Rose (spelled t-r-o-u-b-l-e) secretly spends her time with Jack Ross, a nightclub singer who is completely not of her social standing — who also happens to be black. He ends up proposing to her and she accepts him.

Of course this would never do with the upper class, and we’re mostly led to believe that the problem is a matter of race, although that’s not all of it. He’s not part of the aristocracy, so the match is bad for two reasons — class and race.

The viewer is expected to gasp at how horrible and unfair all of that is, and is supposed to think how nice it is that we all live in such an advanced, forward-thinking, liberal society where we don’t worry about things like that.

Sure we don’t. In our advanced, modern times, Hollywood starlets marry plumbers left and right.

The truth is that we haven’t eliminated class, we’ve just redefined it. The modern aristocracy doesn’t have fancy “coming out” parties with the Prince of Wales, but they have the red carpet at the Emmy’s, the roar of the crowd at the ballpark and the adulation of the voters at the nominating conventions. Even though we don’t have an aristocracy, the fact remains that people pair off along class-conscious lines.

We’re supposed to look at the pressure on Rose not to marry Jack and think, “how awful to judge someone by the color of his skin.” And of course that is awful. But it’s also not the whole story.

There’s lots of tension in Downton Abbey over class. There’s Tom, the chauffeur, who caused scandal by marrying Lady Sybil, and there’s Edith, who gets tangled up with a newspaper editor. All very inappropriate.

The whole concept of an aristocracy is foreign to us, and since it’s foreign and different it’s easy to caricature it as evil. But leaving that aside (I’m not going to defend the aristocracy!), sometimes these things are presented in such a simplistic way that the resulting message comes across as something like “nothing should stand in the way of true love.”

And that brings up to the point of this post. Lots of things should stand in the way of true love.

Not skin color, of course, but there are many more things to consider in choosing a mate than the pitter patter of your heart. Class, culture, education, age, religion, general philosophy on life …. All these things matter far more than a surge of teenage hormones will admit. A “true love conquers all” attitude is almost certainly bound to disappoint in the end.

Life is a matter of going from one conflict to the next disappointment, with a few moments of joy tossed in from time to time. If the husband and wife have completely different attitudes towards money, or how to raise the kids (or even whether to have them), or any number of other things, there’s going to be a far worse ratio of conflict and disappointment to joy.

Two people with similar backgrounds have a better chance at fewer conflicts. It’s not a guarantee, of course. There are no guarantees. But a man raised in Massachusetts who marries a woman raised in Saudi Arabia is likely to have a rough ride. Little differences that seem insignificant when you’re in the throes of passion can become Big Things over time.

Which is why passion should follow sensible thinking about a mate. IOW, have reasonable standards and expectations about whom to marry before you find your heart getting all silly on you.

Extremes need to be avoided — the extreme that forbids marriage outside too narrow a category, and the extreme that ignores the strong likelihood that different backgrounds will end up causing trouble.

-- 13 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-07-24  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Why not just shoot the poor guy?

by Greg Krehbiel on 24 July 2014

Arizona Execution Of Inmate Takes Nearly 2 Hours

Put a bullet in his head, or chop it off, or hang him. If we’re going to be executing people we need to quit playing around. We can’t be torturing people to death.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-07-24  ::  Greg Krehbiel

2014-07-24 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Feminism described briefly
+ 1 comment
2014-07-23 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
“Ahab served Baal a little …”
2014-07-22 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Applying Haidt’s logic to the news
2014-07-22 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
The kickstarter stimulus
2014-07-21 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
The surveillance state and parenting
2014-07-18 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Sex roles and Anglican bishops
2014-07-18 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Waiting for Governor No
+ 3 comments