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 blogHome Brewing blog




The internal contradiction of feminism

by Greg Krehbiel on 5 November 2014

I read this from The Red Queen this morning.

There is a contradiction at the heart of feminism, one that few feminists have acknowledged. You cannot say, first, that men and women are equally capable of all jobs and, second, that if jobs were done by women, they would be done differently.

Yes, that is one of the contradictions at the heart of feminism.

-- 40 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-11-05  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Competence, not partisan politics

by Greg Krehbiel on 5 November 2014

Obama and Reid pushed a radical agenda way too far and the country has pushed back. We don’t want our country “fundamentally transformed,” and we don’t want to be led by extreme partisans.

I hope the Republicans get the message. It would be a huge mistake to take their new power and start pushing the wish list of the extreme right. The country wants work to get done. Not extreme, crazy, “transformative” work. Just regular old, day to day work.

The Republicans should restore normal order to the Senate. They should get back to budgeting. They should focus on passing laws that are fairly non-controversial, which means they’ll have to work with the president and with some Democrats. And most of all they should make sure that government agencies are doing what they’re supposed to be doing and not running off on partisan witch hunts (IRS) or drowning in incompetence (VA).

-- 6 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-11-05  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Would Spock be a good father?

by Greg Krehbiel on 4 November 2014

It used to bug me no end that after thousands of generations of humans, nobody has figured out the rules for being a good parent. You’d think that it would have been hammered out long ago and that “A Guide for Parents” would have been one of the first things off Gutenberg’s press. Every parent would know exactly what they were supposed to do. In reality, every new generation just muddles along, making similar mistakes over and over again.

As a contrast, I couldn’t imagine Vulcans having the same problem. They would have studied the question, come up with the right procedure, and that would be that. Why are humans so illogical?

I used to attribute this to my “don’t tell me what to do” theory of human history. That is, ten billion people are walking single file down a road. The first one falls in a ditch. He gets out and says to the person behind him, “Watch out for the ditch,” to which the guy behind replies, “Don’t tell me what to do.”

That is, whatever things my parents figured out I was too arrogant to listen, and whatever I figure out my kids will be too arrogant to listen.

But it’s worse than that. There’s very little about human psychology or sociology that we’ve studied in any detailed or careful way until pretty recently, and most of that has been clouded by ideology. For example, you’d think that we’d understand sex differences by now, but we’ve gone in exactly the wrong direction. “Studying” the question has made things worse.

Even more recently I’ve come up with another theory to supplement the first two, and that theory says it’s impossible to understand the changing forces that shape a generation. IOW, even while there may be some generally applicable rules for parenting, a lot of stuff is simply out of the parent’s control.

There’s no question to me that different generations have different characteristics, and that those characteristics are shaped by very complicated things the parents can’t hope to understand. When I watch an old movie I’m often mystified at the dialog. They say things that apparently made sense back then, but sound like gibberish to me.

Kids will have things in common with the people of their generation that they will not share with their parents, no matter how the parents raised the kids. For example, my generation almost universally grew up with more personal freedom (e.g., “be home when the street lights come on”) than my kids’ generation, and that has an effect on a lot of things about their personality.

Other things have to have an effect also. Things the availability of loads of cheap stuff, or the shift from analog to digital, or black and white to color, or from no seat belts to seat belts and air bags, or having a little device in your pocket that can answer most questions. These things have to have an effect on the psychology of a generation.

In other words, while there may be some general recommendations that would be helpful for parents to know about (which Spock would know by heart before having a baby), I think parents will always have a generation gap with their children that they won’t be able to understand.

-- 8 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-11-04  ::  Greg Krehbiel





As long as Harry Reid is gone

by Greg Krehbiel on 4 November 2014

I hope Republicans retake the Senate today, but even if they don’t it will be a major victory if Harry Reid is gone as majority leader. That man has been a disaster.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-11-04  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Voter fraud

by Greg Krehbiel on 3 November 2014

Isn’t it obvious that one political party has an interest in letting people vote who shouldn’t be voting?

-- 12 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-11-03  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Do monogamy and democracy go together?

by Greg Krehbiel on 3 November 2014

I’m reading Matt Ridley’s The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature (about which more later), and just finished a section called “monogamous democrats.” Ridley had been arguing for a while that men are naturally driven towards polygamy but women are naturally driven towards monogamy (which I think is roughly but not quite true) and then reviewed some historical examples of extreme polygamy.

Before agriculture, men didn’t have the ability to monopolize power and wealth, and were therefore less able to support a harem. Human families were basically monogamous back when we were hunter-gatherers. When “civilization” came along, a few men at the top could control enormous wealth and power — and the women. The rest of the society seemed to go along with it, either because they believed it was right or because they were forced to go along with it at the end of a spear.

Contrast that with the situation nowadays. Even presidents get in trouble for flings. Ridley wonders why this changed.

What happened? … No historian can yet explain what changed, but guesses include the idea that kings came to need internal allies enough that they had to surrender despotic power. Democracy, of a sort, was born. Once monogamous men had a chance to vote against polygamists … their fate was sealed.

I don’t know if that’s the right explanation, but it’s interesting to note that (if you believe the news) power is once again accumulating in the hands of a few. If that’s true, will it lead to a new era of polygamy?

In a sense we already have it. Rock stars, actors and famous musicians get away with wild sexual excesses, and while that’s always been true to some extent, I don’t think sports stars 50 years ago had the same success as Magic Johnson. The culture has allowed excess to get wildly excessive.

At the same time, it’s interesting that people with more obvious power (e.g., politicians) do not get away with that kind of behavior.

I’ve argued that the approach of the “men on strike” folk is a force against civilization. Many of them admit as much themselves. They’re opting out of the current mess until the system falls under its own weight. (Does anybody believe that after the crash they’d all line up for monogamy and white picket fences?)

This all got me wondering — would it be fair to say that to the extent we accept the idea that alpha males are allowed to accumulate harems we are undermining democracy? Or, to put it another way, does free sex undermine civilization?

I think it does, and here’s why. If your average man doesn’t have a fair shot at finding a virgin wife that he can reasonably expect to be faithful to him, he’ll have less incentive to get with the program. He’ll fall into some lesser role, like the despot’s accountant or eunuch.

It’s not completely black and white — as if allowing free sex destroys all possibility of stable homes and families. But it does push us the wrong way on the spiral, and I suspect there’s a tipping point. It’s not necessary for every marriage to fail and every child to be illegitimate for society to fall apart.

Loose sexual morals help the attractive, popular and powerful, but they leave other people out.

Before anybody misunderstands me, I’m no socialist and I’m not endorsing any government program to “fix” this, but to some extent we want every man to have a vote, a job and a wife. This doesn’t mean we have to hunt down or persecute the stragglers, but we want a social structure that generally pushes in that direction. Free sex does not.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-11-03  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Bernard Chapin reviews Eggs are Expensive, Sperm is Cheap

by Greg Krehbiel on 1 November 2014

Recently when I’ve had time for YouTube videos I’ve been listening to Bernard Chapin’s “Chapin’s Inferno,” which is a pretty good channel. I thought Bernard might like my book on sex roles so I sent him a copy, and he very kindly reviewed it here.

I think it’s a fair review. He takes issue with a few things, but I think that’s partly because I wasn’t clear enough on a few points. Or maybe we just disagree. Either way’s okay with me.

I may not have been clear enough in my book that I don’t mean to suggest that men should perform their traditional roles while women refuse to perform theirs. I don’t believe that at all. I think the marriage strike and “men going their own way” is a perfectly rational response to feminism. If women want to change the rules, why should men feel obligated to follow the ones that restrict them?

That makes sense. But what would happen to the world if it were made up of feminists and red pill men? I think it might be the end of civilization, and I’m fond of civilization. I like being able to go to the dentist when my tooth hurts.

The point of my book is to point out the way things should be. If both sexes adopted something more like their traditional roles, the world would be a better place.

I don’t want men to be chivalrous to useless modern women. I certainly don’t approve of the “man up and marry the slut” stuff you get from some traditionalists (including many pastors, apparently). Rather, I want men to have a high standard because I truly believe that men are the leaders and that women will eventually follow. If men could latch on to a higher standard, reject modernism and refuse to date or marry the XX monsters we have in the world today, I hope (and I admit it’s only a hope) that women would turn around towards more traditional roles.

Men need to fight the modern lunacy on every front.

It seems to me that red pill men have adopted the “going Galt” approach. That is, they think that if they say “never mind, I’m not going to play under your silly terms,” they’ll leave modern society to die from its own sickness. That may be right, but it’s the path to destruction.

I don’t think that’s the manly response. The manly response is not to give up, but to hold up a higher standard and call other people (including women) to follow. No, don’t play by their rules. Play by the right rules!

-- 6 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-11-01  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Could we win a space race today?

by Greg Krehbiel on 1 November 2014

Just this past week a NASA rocket blew up shortly after launch and Richard Branson’s space tourist ship crashed, but China’s lunar probe successfully returned to Earth.

It wouldn’t be fair to take this week’s news as some sort of icon of generic space proficiency, but it makes me wonder about the future. China is pushing ahead with their space program. Meanwhile at NASA, we’re worried about promoting women and minorities to management positions.

I would be willing to bet the mortgage that most of the astronauts from the 60s would fail a modern politically correct witch hunt. I’ll bet they were womanizers and drinkers, believed in awful, politically incorrect things, were guilty of sexual harassment and “homophobia,” and all kinds of things that — in today’s climate — would be a complete scandal.

But despite all that, they had the right stuff.

In the weird modern world, getting the job done is not the priority. The priority is having the right thoughts while you do a mediocre job.

Abraham Lincoln famously replied to criticisms of U.S. Grant’s drinking that if he knew his brand he’d buy him a case. Lincoln knew that the issue of the day was winning the war, and Grant was making progress. The issue was not “setting a good example” or pleasing the moral scruples of Sunday School teachers. The issue was defeating the South.

Back when we were scared by Sputnik, the issue of the day was beating the Russians to the moon. Nobody cared that all the astronauts and engineers were men. Nobody cared about what they did on their time off. They had a job to do.

I’m not sure we can do that today. If we have a space race with China, I’m pretty confident that the Chinese won’t care how many women are in the program, or whether they think correct thoughts about homosexuality, or whether the logos on their space ships don’t offend anybody. I’m pretty sure their number one priority will be getting the job done.

I can’t say the same thing about the United States. It’s very hard to even imagine a president with the courage to ignore the politically correct nonsense and focus on the job.

We have a huge technological advantage on any challengers when it comes to space technology. But we’re living off borrowed capital. That advantage is going to fade, and without a leader who’s willing to buy a drunk general a case of his favorite whiskey, or look the other way while the pilots misbehave, that advantage won’t last long.

-- 7 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-11-01  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Socialist hypocrites on minimum wage

by Greg Krehbiel on 1 November 2014

This is funny. “The Freedom Socialist Party” promotes a $20 minimum wage, but it has a job posting on its site where they offer $13. HT Bernard Chapin.

-- 2 comments  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-11-01  ::  Greg Krehbiel





Colbert, jumping the shark

by Greg Krehbiel on 31 October 2014

I haven’t seen much of the guy recently, but I just watched his show with Anita Sarkeesian (as much of it as I could take ) and it seems that he has jumped the line from sufferable jerk to insufferable jerk.

--  ::  What do you think?  ::  2014-10-31  ::  Greg Krehbiel

2014-10-31 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
How to send documents to your kindle
2014-10-31 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Affirmative action for social psychology?
2014-10-31 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
For your Halloween reading …
+ 2 comments
2014-10-29 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
That’s a nice tnetennba
2014-10-29 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Drunk utilitarians
2014-10-25 :: Greg Krehbiel // General
Certainties from “experts”
+ 1 comment