Friday, September 16, 2016

"They also think it is immoral and therefore dangerous."

You don’t think about whether the store you’re taking your child into might get held up. 
Nor should you. 
Yet leaving your kid alone, even for a short time in safe circumstances, can lead to a child-abuse investigation. 
What’s going on? 
The researchers suspected that the overestimating of risk reflects moral convictions about proper parenting. 
To separate the two instincts, they created a series of surveys asking participants to rate the danger to children left alone in five specific circumstances: a 2 ½-year-old at home for 20 minutes eating a snack and watching Frozen, for instance, or a 6-year-old in a park about a mile from her house for 25 minutes. The reasons for the parent’s absence were varied randomly. It could be unintentional, for work, to volunteer for charity, to relax or to meet an illicit lover. 
Because the child’s situation was exactly the same in all the intentional cases, the risks should also be identical. 
Asked what the dangers might be, participants listed the same ones in all circumstances, with a stranger harming the child the most common, followed by an accident. 
The unintentional case might be slightly more dangerous, because parents wouldn’t have a chance to make provisions for their absence such as giving the child a phone and emergency instructions or parking the car in the shade. 
But survey respondents didn’t see things this way at all. 
“A mother’s unintentional absence was seen as safer for the child than a mother’s intentional absence for any reason, and a mother’s work-related absence was seen as more dangerous than an unintentional absence, but less dangerous than if the mother left to pursue an illicit sexual affair,” they write. 
The same was true for fathers, except that respondents rated leaving for work as posing no greater danger than leaving unintentionally. 
Moral disapproval informed beliefs about risks. 
That was true even when the survey explicitly separated the two factors, first asking participants to rate leaving the child from 1 (nothing wrong) to 10 (highly unethical/immoral). 
People rated the risk higher when they first made a moral judgment. 
“People don’t only think that leaving children alone is dangerous and therefore immoral,” the researchers write. 
“They also think it is immoral and therefore dangerous. 
“That is, people overestimate the actual danger to children who are left alone by their parents, in order to better support or justify their moral condemnation of parents who do so.” 
The result is a feedback loop that increases the legal and social penalties for leaving kids alone and reinforces the belief that even the briefest parental absence amounts to child abuse. 
These beliefs don’t just affect busybodies. They lead police, prosecutors, judges and jurors to overestimate risks. 
Take what happened to Julie Koehler: she left her three daughters, ages 8, 5 and 4, watching a video in the minivan while she went into an Evanston, Illinois, Starbucks for three minutes. When she saw a police officer talking to the girls through the open windows, she thought nothing of it, until he returned and her 8-year-old started crying. She rushed out of the store, and the situation deteriorated from there. 
Koehler is a public defender in the homicide division. 
She knew she hadn’t broken any laws and she had two lawyers, her husband and mother, to call to the scene. 
She wasn’t arrested, but the state nonetheless initiated a child-abuse investigation.
Read the rest at: 

Wednesday, August 31, 2016


Sometimes misreading a word puts an idea in my head, and there's no way to get it out except...

Saturday, July 30, 2016

"Summer of Justice" recap


The so-called "Summer of Justice" protest week

Wichita, Kansas, site of the original 1991 so-called "Summer of Mercy" protests, for which these protests were intended to be an anniversary celebration and renewal, has been experiencing a heat wave. Not exactly unusual for the third week in July. But that's the week chosen by Rusty Thomas, director of Operation Save America, who went on to say "I pray what God began in 1991, he's going to complete in 2016."

Not being God, I can only offer my own view: I hope the "completed" part is true.

Wouldn't that be nice? Last Thursday, during the protest week, David S. Cohen, co-author of the new book Living in the Crosshairs: The Untold Stories of Anti-Abortion Terrorism, gave a talk at a local bookstore. He told the stories of abortion providers who have been harassed, threatened, and in some cases outright attacked in the decades since Roe v. Wade was decided.

He told us of doctors, medical assistants, clinic owners, and volunteers who have been forced to wear disguises and take alternate routes to work because of threats, whose children have been stalked at school, and in one case had her personal information including home address published in a "newsletter" that was distributed to pro-life prisoners currently serving time. Yes, pro-life violent criminals were informed, during their prison sentence, that the only way to stop abortionists is with a bullet and by the way, here's one of their home addresses.

At this point, I had already contacted Trust Women to express a desire to do something to help during the upcoming anniversary protest. Operation Save America had been kind enough to publish an anticipated schedule for the week, including speakers (note the gender of all involved), and I wanted to be useful in some way during what would surely be a stressful time for both South Wind Women's Center (Dr. George Tiller's former clinic: see this post and this post) and the Planned Parenthood central Wichita location.

I've gone to this Planned Parenthood location several times, with a positive experience each time. But security is something of a concern. At the Repro Rally on July 9, Planned Parenthood was accepting volunteers to act as escorts from the parking lot to the door of the clinic. South Wind, by contrast, has a secure private parking lot, which is something of a luxury in that it doesn't seem to be very common for clinics that provide abortion services (though it should, in my humble view, be ubiquitous and government-funded).

So my initial question for Trust Women/South Wind was whether they'd like support in the form of counter-protest, and was told no-- actually, engaging the protesters would be counter productive. But maybe I could be a legal observer?  A legal observer's job is to observe, obviously, via your eyes and ears and video recording device and camera and notepad and however else you can notice, record, and document what's going on. Not being a confrontational person (to put it lightly), this seemed to me an ideal way to help out.  What, you mean I don't have to shout at people who hate me?  I can just be present, and pay attention? Sign me up!

So I was signed up. I got trained. I met some really cool people in the process, whose identities I won't give here for privacy's sake, but I can say this: Everybody cared. Everybody wanted to do something to defend the right to an abortion on the ground, against an onslaught of people who want to attack it on that level.

But we weren't fighting-- we were explicitly not fighting. That, of course, didn't stop protesters from approaching us, once they figured out that we weren't part of their group. We didn't make it blatantly obvious, of course-- no pro-choice t-shirts or signs. Just some people wandering around, watching, who were distinguished somewhat by the fact that we weren't wearing t-shirts with big crosses on them or waving signs.

I trained on one day, and observed on two days following that. The protesters who approached me, on both days, were always men. Men over the age of 35, of varying degrees of politeness ranging from "Have a nice day" to "What you're doing is evil, and I hope you know that."

The number of signs and slogans that co-opted Black Lives Matter, and the wider movement against police racism and brutality, was astonishing.

No one, to my knowledge, was arrested. There was ample police presence, and the police officers were friendly to everyone. From what I observed they didn't interact much with either the protesters or the legal observers. I was profoundly grateful for their presence-- for obvious reasons, but also because it made my job decidedly easier.

So let's talk about that now. Let's talk about how last Saturday, the final day of the protest, I was observing until the official end, and I observed several protesters walk up to police officers and thank them for not arresting them. The "Thank you" part is great-- no issue with that.  The "...for not arresting us" part is slightly different.

Pro-life protesters: They weren't not arresting you because they're nice, or because they respect or agree with you. They weren't arresting you because, for the most part, you weren't breaking the law.

The police are not on a crusade to arrest the virtuous pro-lifer at the behest of the evil abortion provider-- they're there to enforce the law, and the abortion providers and volunteers are happy to see them do it.  Due to the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act, protesters may not physically prevent doctors or other clinic personnel from entering the clinic, and you did not do that. You just shouted at them, with microphones and amplifiers. For the most part, you stayed where it was legal to stay. That is why you didn't get arrested.

Freedom of speech protects your right to gather in groups and tell lies on the sidewalk. For better or for worse.

And boy, were there a lot of lies.

I often wonder about how the pro-life movement would look if everyone, nationwide, actually understood what abortion is.

When I see a pro-life lie about abortion, I have long since stopped thinking in terms of "liars for Jesus," because there's one critical problem with admonishing people for their supposed hypocrisy in violating one of the Ten Commandments in the name of their faith: You cannot lie if you don't know what you're saying is untrue. And I honestly don't think they know.  They haven't ever been taught the truth, so they don't know that what they're proclaiming is a lie.

Ignorance is the greatest enemy of human rights.

These people think that Planned Parenthood sells baby parts.

These people think there is such a thing as "post abortive syndrome," where women who get abortions find themselves in a state of long-lasting regret and even self-destructive behavior afterward.

These people think that women get abortions because they are promiscuous, lazy, and/or selfish.

These people think that abortion harms/risks your body in ways that pregnancy and giving birth do not.

These people think that providing abortion services for minorities, who, due to poverty, are in greater need of abortion services, is racist.

These people preach against homosexuality and birth control at the same time as abortion, because they think "be fruitful and multiply" is a God-given mandate.

These people think that "viable" means a fetus is a healthy baby.

These people think banning abortion would end the killing of babies, rather than resume the killing and imprisonment of women.

These people think that abortion providers, people receiving abortions, and people defending the right to abortion don't know what they're doing. They think we don't know what abortion is.

Ignorance really is the greatest enemy of human rights.

Happy not to be on that team

I can't help wondering if, after having established his character Dilbert as the office Everyman, Scott Adams has somehow welded himself permanently into that role-- in his own perception, at least. That perhaps after such a long time of speaking to the Dilberts of America and the world, Adams has managed to convince himself that he also speaks for them. 

Or maybe not. Maybe it's just your typical bigot universalism tendency. Maybe that's what it always has been. Either way, Adams has decided that the Democratic National Convention is very likely lowering the testosterone of American men, and thereby their happiness, on a national scale. 

Why is this? Because the celebration of woman aspiring to positions of power that they have never held throughout the country's history-- specifically, the presidency-- makes Adams feel defeated:
I watched singer Alicia Keys perform her song Superwoman at the convention and experienced a sinking feeling. I’m fairly certain my testosterone levels dropped as I watched, and that’s not even a little bit of an exaggeration. Science says men’s testosterone levels rise when they experience victory, and drop when they experience the opposite. I watched Keys tell the world that women are the answer to our problems. True or not, men were probably not feeling successful and victorious during her act. 
Let me say this again, so you know I’m not kidding. Based on what I know about the human body, and the way our thoughts regulate our hormones, the Democratic National Convention is probably lowering testosterone levels all over the country. Literally, not figuratively. And since testosterone is a feel-good chemical for men, I think the Democratic convention is making men feel less happy. They might not know why they feel less happy, but they will start to associate the low feeling with whatever they are looking at when it happens, i.e. Clinton.
I'm sure that you-- but perhaps not Adams-- have already heard the aphorism "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." Maybe you've acknowledged it, though, without trying to stop and consider whether it really feels like oppression.  I can't actually say, one way or another-- I don't know of any scientific studies that can verify it (though if you do, please let me know).

And Adams is making a scientific statement here. He's saying that watching and listening to Alicia Keys perform Superwoman made him feel like a loser. That this feeling of non-triumph means lower testosterone, and therefore that this feeling must be spreading across the country and lowering testosterone levels on a national scale.  Wow!

So what if he's right? Let's just assume he is, for the sake of argument.

Power can certainly be a zero-sum game-- if someone gains it, somebody else is losing it. Adams described the feeling he was having as like losing. Being non-triumphant. I believe him about that. I believe that to someone who sees the world in hierarchical terms and has bought stock in just-world bias, equality feels like losing.

He gets two things wrong about this, though.

First, he thinks that because he feels like a loser, he's been somehow wronged. "Superwoman" apparently profoundly disturbed his worldview, and rather than question that worldview he blames the song, Alisha Keys, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, or all of the above for harming him. I feel bad, those people made me feel bad, those people are wrong!

Second, he universalizes-- he thinks that all American men feel bad, or should feel bad, right along with him. He wants to bring a class-action lawsuit on behalf of all men against feeling bad, without ever checking to see whether everybody else who identifies as male feels like a loser too. Presumably at least some of them don't-- there were men at the DNC, right? A few of them? Was any footage captured of them bending over in agony while Alisha Keys was singing, protecting their genitalia?

That's a common tendency of bigots-- white supremacists assume that all white people are white supremacists, homophobes assume all straight people are homophobes, etc. and that anyone who isn't is either lying or a traitor. Scott Adams, of course, assumes that all men are as threatened as he is by women in powerful positions.

Thankfully, he's mistaken about that.

Let me restate that more emphatically-- thankfully, Scott Adam is wrong. He does not get to speak for mankind, any more than any other fearful member of the majority gets to speak against a minority.

When I posted about this on Facebook, my friend Ben Pobjie commented:
He assumes that being male is like being on a team, and we all put that team first and identify with other members of that team before all else. I might be threatened by women in powerful positions if I thought I was on the same team as Scott Adams, and that the purpose of life was to be on the winning team.
When you think in those terms, it's really a choice you make-- do you define your "team" based on incidental characteristics and then push for them to win, whatever "winning" is supposed to mean? Or do you choose your team based on what they say and do, regardless of these other differences, and work together for common goals rather than common traits?

I seem to have less and less time, these days, for people who choose the former.