What's Wrong With the Golden Rule?

This is an oldish post by Sam Killerman, over at It's Pronounced Metrosexual. One could quibble about whether the problem he's discussing really is one with the Golden Rule as such, but the underlying point is spot-on.

Here's the basic gist:

Ever worked with a "difficult person"? I would bet...that those "difficulties" you faced were exacerbated by your [probably] inadvertent exercising of the Golden Rule. Do unto a difficult (=different from you) person as you would have done unto you (=same as you), and you're going to be done unto with a headache and a screaming sound inside of your head.

This is all by way of trying to understand, and undo, the "Why are you so sensitive?" response we all get, but that seems especially directed at oppressed minorities.

The replacement Killerman proposes is the "Platinum Rule":

Do unto others as they would have done unto them, dudes.

The origins of the Platinum Rule seem unclear. Most people, including Kellmerman, credit Milton Bennett, in a paper from 1979, who was particularly concerned with cross-cultural interactions and who emphasized the importance of empathy. But there is at least one antecedent, according to Wikipedia, which quotes Karl Popper as saying:

The golden rule is a good standard which can perhaps even be improved by doing unto others, wherever possible, as they would be done by. (The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2, 1966 [1945], p. 386.)

All of this is relevant to (and was linked from) a more recent piece by Kellerman, "Empathy Leads To Understanding", which is about why the former is more important than the latter.

Atheism vs Anti-Theism

Really terrific piece by Reza Aslan about why the "New Atheists" are neither new nor atheists.

In seeking to replace religion with secularism and faith with science, the New Atheists have, perhaps inadvertently, launched a movement with far too many similarities to the ones they so radically oppose. Indeed, while we typically associate fundamentalism with religiously zealotry, in so far as the term connotes an attempt to "impose a single truth on the plural world"—use the definition of noted philosopher Jonathan Sacks—then there is little doubt that a similar fundamentalist mind-set has overcome many adherents of this latest iteration of anti-theism.

Precisely. (Seen first on AlterNet.)

All reminiscent in some ways of a famous remark by Einstein, reflecting on the reaction to an article he wrote on religion in 1940:

I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.

Of course, Einstein's views about religion were very, very complicated and seem to have shifted over time, from what I can tell.

Collection of Articles on Bill Cosby and The Like

Deeply disturbing.

• "The Cosby Show" (Ta-Neishi Coates, The Atlantic)
• "Publicly Shaming Bill Cosby Is the Best We Can Do" (Hanna Rosin, Slate XX)
• "Therese Serignese, Florida Nurse, Says Bill Cosby Drugged And Raped Her In 1976" (Emma Gray, HuffPo)
• "Model Janice Dickinson Says Bill Cosby Sexually Assaulted Her" (Elliot Hannon, Slate)
• "Why Does Alleged Sexual Predator R. Kelly Still Have a Career?" (Josh Levin, Slate XX)

But what's most disturbing, or so my wife tells me, is that there were extensive reports on these accusations, by reputable news organizations, years ago. Or, as Barbara Bowman asked: "Bill Cosby raped me. Why did it take 30 years for people to believe my story?" Is the answer the one she gives? "Only after a man, Hannibal Buress, called Bill Cosby a rapist in a comedy act last month did the public outcry begin in earnest." God help us if so.

"Frege Arithmetic and 'Everyday Mathematics'" Published

My paper "Frege Arithmetic and 'Everyday Mathematics'" has been published in Philosophia Mathematica 22 (2014), pp. 279-307. Abstract:

This paper shows that predicative Frege arithmetic naturally interprets some weak but non-trivial arithmetical theories. The weak theories in question are all relational versions of Tarski, Mostowski, and Robinson's R and Q, i.e., they are formulated using predicates Pxy, Axyz, and Mxyz in place of the usual function symbols Sx, x+y, and x×y. We lose the existence and uniqueness of successor, sum, and product, as generalizations, but retain these in each particular case (much as we lose the recursion clauses for addition in R, but retain them in each particular case). In saying that the interpretation is "natural", I mean that it relies only upon "definitions" of arithmetical notions that are themselves "natural", that is, that have some claim to be "definitions" in something other than a purely formal sense.

The published version can be found here; the pre-publication version, here. If you need a copy of the published version but don't have access without paying, then send me an email.

More Great PGR Posts From Mitchell Aboulafia

Mitchell's the human to watch on this.

• PGREvaluators: Struggling with Other Obligations
• The PGR: A Whiff of Desperation?

That last one should definitely make us really totally confident that the new co-editor has total, utter, complete independence from any influence that Herr Über Professor Leiter might, well, not attempt to exert, we wouldn't want to imply that...more like impose with an iron fist.

No offense, but sometimes one wonders what the fire truck people are thinking.

Do You Know About Jian?

Somehow, I totally failed to link to this amazing article by the extent to which people surrounding Jian Ghomeshi knew that he was "weird" about women. I meant to include it with these links (and now have).

I have since found another article in a similar vein, by Carl Wilson on Slate XX. And another, by Emma Healey, on The Hairpin.

Dissent in 6th Circuit Same-Sex Marriage Case

The decision in the same-sex marriage case before the 6th Circuit is no doubt depressing, though in all likelihood it will not stand for very long. But the dissent from Martha Craig Daughtrey is well worth reading. (It starts on page 43.)

The flavor is well enough illustrated by the first and last paragraphs.

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state's constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the FourteenthAmendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is "who should decide?"—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism. In point of fact, the real issue before us concerns what is at stake in these six cases for the individual plaintiffs and their children, and what should be done about it. Because I reject the majority's resolution of these questions based on its invocation of vox populi and its reverence for "proceeding with caution" (otherwise known as the "wait and see" approach), I dissent.

And then:

More than 20 years ago, when I took my oath of office to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, I solemnly swore to "administer justice without respect to persons," to "do equal right to the poor and to the rich," and to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me...under the Constitution and laws of the United States." See 28 U.S.C. §453. If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams.

Amen.

Alcohol and Consent

I post a lot of links to what Thomas MacAulay Millar writes about consent, because so much of it is so sensible. And his recent piece "Draining the Swamp: Alcohol and Agency" is no exception.

Here's the first graph:

The way to handle the relationship between alcohol and alcohol-facilitated rape isn't to adopt some prohibition-lite approach that shames people (women; it's usually women that get shamed for pleasures of the flesh). Not only is it wrong, it doesn't even work. The way to deal with it is to recognize that shame and discomfort around sex incentivize the connection between alcohol and sexual situations. If we want to reduce the rate at which potential victims of sexual assault are intoxicated, the smart solution is to reduce the incentives to intoxicate.

It's hard to have this conversation without it devolving into victim-blaming. Why? Because too many people want to blame victims. But we need to have this conversation.

Thomas's piece is in part a commentary on another article about alcohol and consent on HuffPo by Yvonne Fulbright, who argues that "we need to address the fact that many young people feel like they need to get drunk in order to be sexual and sexually active". And what's striking is that her proposals have nothing to do with alcohol.

-- Schools implementing age appropriate, medically accurate, comprehensive sexuality education from kindergarten through the 12th grade.

-- Universities offering courses by qualified sexuality educators in the art of seduction, romance, desires, sex communication, and reciprocal pleasures, helping students to realize what it truly means to be sexually confident. As a new, catchy slogan says, "Put the Sensual in Consensual!"

-- College campuses hosting Intimacy 101 workshops, which provide young people with a reality check around the many issues related to being sexually active, and which challenge misconceptions around better sex, including those of drunk versus sober sex.

-- Medical facilities offering accessible, affordable, first-rate sexual and reproductive health services.

-- Community centers, churches/synagogues, media outlets, and schools providing parents and caregivers with information and guidance in how to have effective conversations about sex and relationships with youth.

-- Parents and other important others guiding youth around matters of sexual intimacy, equipping them with the knowledge and skills needed to evaluate their own sex-related values, attitudes and beliefs systems in making better choices for themselves.

But the more important point that Thomas makes is that we need to develop a culture in which women have the right to say "Yes", and not just the right to say "No". Those are, as he says, "inherently interdependent", and neither makes sense without the other. But the truth, culturally speaking, is that women still don't have a right to say "Yes".

Yet More About Consent

Kind of basic stuff here, but worth reading. The nice point is that one doesn't have to go so far as to satisfy the legal definition of rape to violate consent in a way that does harm.

• "Coerced Consent: When 'Yes' Really Means 'No'" (Harris O'Malley, Good Men Project)

This one is thought-provoking. I won't even try to say what it's about. Probably, as she suggests, men shouldn't read it.

• "Consent Is Way More Complicated For Women Than Just 'Yes Means Yes'" (Samantha Eyler, Role Reboot)

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

• "6 Myths About 'Yes Means Yes'" (Soraya Chemaly, Role Reboot)
• "Neutral Evil: The Problem With Refusing To Decide" (Thomas MacAulay Millar, Yes Means Yes)

Which means we should remind ourselves again why people have a problem with this.

Street Harrassment

There's alot I'd change about this piece on Good Men Project trying to explain to men what's wrong with street harassment. But it makes one very important point.

Are there ways to tell a strange woman that you think that she’s attractive without harassing her? Of course there is. But this is one of the many times where you need to examine your motivations in the first place. For many people it’s not just about paying the compliment—it's about her reaction to the compliment as well. They say they want to make a stranger feel good but if she ignores then or—worse—gets annoyed by it? Many of those "gentlemen" will get their backs up—"It’s just a compliment! I’m trying to tell you that you're pretty. You should say 'thank you'!" ...

That reproach for not acknowledging [the] compliment underscores the real motivation: he wants her attention and acknowledgement. Her presence out in public means that her time and attention is now a public resource, available for any and all to demand at will.

 There's other good stuff there, as well.

An Open Letter to Prospective Evaluators for the 2014-2015 Philosophical Gourmet Report

Not by me, but by Mitchell Aboulafia. Posted at NewAPPS.

Here, I shall do no more than register my disgust, yet again, by quoting the words of Zachary Ernst:

It is my contention that the Report is not merely unsound as a ranking system and detrimental to the profession; it is obviously unsound as a ranking system and obviously detrimental to the profession. Indeed, its flaws are so obvious that it would seem to be unnecessary to discuss them. However, the Report is also an institution unto itself. It is so deeply entrenched into the profession of academic philosophy that otherwise highly intelligent and critical professionals seem to have developed a blind spot to it.

Indeed, it is seriously worrying how utterly oblivious people in this profession are to the flaws of PGR and to the egregious damage it does. Not intentionally, but that is ir-effing-relevant.

Should You Buy Sex Toys From Amazon?

Some thoughts inspried by a nice article today by Dangerous Lily (possibly NSFW, depending upon where you W), which reminded me of a slightly older piece on Daily Dot.

There are lots of reasons not to want to buy from Amazon, which I'd link to if it weren't Sunday morning and I weren't so lazy. (And if I weren't so hypocritical.) But one reason that has bothered me more and more lately is piracy. My sense is that the stuff that Amazon itself sells is generally unlikely to be pirated—though I had an experience with a replacement battery for a cell phone that left me wondering—but Amazon seems to exercise almost no control over the sellers on its "marketplace". I have seen quite a few reports from retailers who have tried to get Amazon to pull counterfeit versions of their products, only to be told that they need to order the product first to confirm that it isn't authentic. Never mind that it is being sold in colors they don't actually make!

Nowhere does this problem seem to be worse than with sex toys. The Magic Wand (no longer the "Hitachi" Magic Wand) is counterfeited so often that their FAQ includes a question about how to tell a real one. The problem seems to be worst with 'high-end' sex toys, which isn't surprising, given the room that's available to "discount" a $125 vibrator. It doesn't take much time looking around on Amazon to find these sorts of "deals".

But seriously: If we're going to be putting these near our sensitive bits, do we really want to be using cheaply made knock-offs? I don't think so! The lack of a warranty is hardly the point. Besides, there are so many great progressive, sex-positive, often women-owned companies on the web to do business with instead, like Babeland, Good Vibrations, and She Vibe (in the US). And if you live in a decent sized city, there's probably some local store with real people you could support. For my homies: Boston's got a Good Vibrations off Harvard Street in Brookline; Providence has the quirky little independent store Mister Sister Erotica on Wickenden Street (which you really should check out if you're in this part of the world).

More on Consent, Assault, and the Like

Just to be clear: I couldn't care less about Jian Ghomeshi. I'd never heard of the guy until a week or so ago. But when these sorts of things happen, and you see and hear the kinds of reactions we have seen and heard, it's a teachable moment. And it's an especially good moment for men to shut the fuck up for one freaking moment and listen to what the women around us are saying about their lives and their experience.

In that spirit, here is some more reading material.

• "Why I Can't Remain Silent About What Jian Did to Me" (Reva Seth, HuffPo Canada)
• "As a Sex Assault Victim, I Know Why Jian's Accusers Didn't Call the Police" (Jill Amery, HuffPo Canada)
• "Jian Ghomeshi, the CBC and Rape Culture" (Yandie, Goddess of Pickles, Feministe)
• "Jian Ghomeshi, Sexual Violence, and the Presumption of Innocence" (Anne Thériault, Vice)
• "What Jian Ghomeshi’s Accusers Were Afraid Of" (Anna North, New York Times Opinion Pages)

The last draws the obvious sorts of comparisons to the recent treatment of Anna Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu and others, about which I've also posted.

Good Reads: Consent, Ghomeshi, BDSM

This is an oldie but a goodie. The basic point is that people rarely refuse an invitation of any kind by saying "No". To the contrary, refusals are usually hedged in various ways, to soften the blow. The lesson is that people who violate consent don't "not understand". They don't want to understand.

• "Mythcommunication" (Yes Means Yes)

Another oldie about how communities "work around" the knowledge that one of their own is "sketchy on consent".

• "The Missing Stair" (The Pervocracy)

And this is a wonderful piece on a much older case explaining the fundamental difference between BDSM and abuse:

• "Not What We Do" (Yes Means Yes)

All of which brings us back to Jian Ghomeshi:

• "Ghomeshi: The Developing Story, And Predator Theory Observations" (Yes Means Yes)
• "Jian Ghomeshi Isn’t the First Alleged Abuser to Cite the Right to BDSM Sexuality" (The Cut)
• "Do You Know About Jian?" (Nothing in Winnipeg)
• "I Knew About Jian Ghomeshi" (Slate XX)

One of the really important reminders here is that "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard that applies to criminal prosecutions and not even e.g. to arrest.

While we're at it: Here's a nice cartoon that explains what the real objection is to affirmative consent.

(Via Everyday Feminism).