sitakali

**TW: Fetishization of women, racism

I lived in Patterson, New Jersey for four months when I was twenty-two. Paterson is a predominantly African American and Latino population. During the time that I was there, I saw maybe a total of three white women anywhere around my age. Men*, mostly black men, would tell me that I was beautiful an average of ten times a day (though on some days it was as many as twenty). It became apparent fairly early on that they found me exotic and different, primarily because I was white. However, I still appreciated being told that I was beautiful, because it made me feel beautiful, though on a very superficial level.

About one month into my stay there, I began to feel snappy and overly annoyed at the men who would comment. I felt horribly guilty about my reaction towards them. They were being nice and giving me a compliment – what right did I have to be upset with them? I still said, “thank you,” to every single one, and tried to avoid eye contact so as not to encourage them.

Not long after I started getting annoyed, I realized that my saying “thank you” and avoiding eye contact was an indication that there was a problem. It was an indication that I felt two main things when I was complimented: Obligation and fear. I was obligated to be polite and thankful towards them for complimenting me. I owed them something. But I was afraid of encouraging them into thinking I was interested in them, and it sure as hell was easy to encourage them. All I had to do was look into their eyes for two seconds and they would try to chat me up.

At this point, I realized that I didn’t really owe them anything. These men were essentially paying me a currency – a compliment – and assumed that therefore I owed them a service – a polite response or a conversation. But I didn’t ask for this currency. Unlike with regular money, I couldn’t just hand it back to them. You can’t un-hear a compliment. So I did what I needed to do: I began to ignore them. And their response was exactly as I expected.

They became rude. No, there was nothing innocent or kind about their compliments to begin with. It was all a power play, to oblige me to pay attention to them. They may not have realized this consciously, but that didn’t change the facts. When I ignored them, most of them would first try to repeat themselves. Over and over again, they would say, “Hey, did you hear me, girl?” Once they realized I was ignoring them, they would call me a bitch.

I took this experience back with me into my own hometown. I realized that, though I no longer received the comments that I would get for being ethnically exotic, I still received comments that were unwelcome. All sexual comments from strangers brought with them obligation and fear.

The fetishization of women of colour

My experience was a tiny glimpse into the experiences of women* of colour, women who date other women, and fat women absolutely everywhere. Women of colour are frequently fetishized by white men; in other words, they are valued because they are different. Here are a few examples of what they have to put up with (via friends of mine and reports I’ve read on the Internet):

(To a black woman) “Ooh, gotta love that black booty!” ”Baby got back!” etc.

(To a Chinese woman) “Me love you long time!” (Reference to Full Metal Jacket, which was about Viet Nam, not China – but white men don’t give a shit). ”I love Asian food! You wanna make me a stir fry some time?” etc.

(To a Latina woman) “Aiaiaiaiai! Spicy hot!” etc.

The fetishization of fat women goes something like this: “Big and beautiful!”

And to lesbians: “Can I join in?” “Can I watch?” “This dick will straighten you out.” (These I’ve experienced first-hand)

Yes, it’s lovely being essentially told that the only reason you’re being noticed is because you’re different from the status quo, you’re “exotic.” And of course the same obligation always comes with any comment: You must respond in a polite way, and be thankful for the attention.

The fetishization of women in general

Like women of colour, women in general (or people who are perceived to be female) are fetishized. You are seen as exotic and exciting just for being female. This trend in our culture is reinforced by the media. Look at the average billboard, magazine, or TV commercial and you will see a scantily-clad woman being used to sell something. We are objects to be sold, used, and leered at. It is not healthy, and it hurts us psychologically. There is a constant fear and obligation that comes with being a woman.

So, people (especially men) who care: The next time you feel the need to compliment a woman who you have never spoken to before, don’t just think of your comment as an isolated incident. It is not. Even if you do not feel that women have any obligation towards you, even if you would never call a woman a “bitch” for ignoring you or speaking her mind, she is bombarded by reminders of what is expected from her all the time. You must consider everything she probably frequently experiences, instead of just what you are going to say once. Your comment is an addition to piles and piles of shit, and it is not needed.

A general rule of thumb: Think about what you’re about to say, and whether it is something that a woman would normally say to a man. Do women frequently go up to men and say, “you’re hot,” “you’re beautiful,” or “wanna fuck?” I’m not talking about the occasional incident, I’m talking on a day-to-day basis. If not, then don’t say it to a woman. Because your comment is going to have even more of an impact on a woman than a woman’s comment would have on a man. And think to yourself: Why is the idea of not harassing women such a burden? Do women find it difficult not to harass men?

Also, check out the Politics of “hello,” a similar subject that was written on the Feministe website. And yet more information on the Male occupation of public space.

*Note: When I say “women” I’m referring to people who are perceived by others to be female, and therefore receive comments based on that assumption. When I say “men,” I am referring to people who self-identify as male. Such problems do exist in the gay/lesbian community as well; however, our culture’s obsession is with heterosexual sex. Female-on-female objectification is horrible as well, as is the objectification of men and other genders. Our male-dominated culture is obsessed with people who are perceived as women especially, and that is what I chose to write about at this time.

Posted in Social Environmentalist
Tags: feminism, racism, sex, sexism

A common argument used in support of genetically modified crops is the possibly unfounded assumption that GM crops are needed to mitigate global hunger. In some of the literature that supports this supposition, no effort is made to evaluate whether or not farmers can continue to produce enough food to feed the world without this new technology. For example, one research review (Azadi and Ho, 2009) expresses concern about low productivity in developing nations. In another example, biotechnology giant Monsanto states on its website that “Food production will need to increase exponentially in order to meet population growth” (Monsanto, 2010). They assert that biotechnology is a fundamental facet of increasing yield. The first fundamental question to ask, then, is: Are genetically modified crops necessary in the fight against global hunger?

It is important to differentiate between famine and starvation. Famine is an actual scarcity of food (Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2011). Starvation, on the other hand, is simply a lack of food intake (Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2011 [II]). This can be because of famine, or for other reasons. So what are hungry people in the world experiencing now: famine, or another form of starvation? And will this be the same in 50 years?

If global hunger is not caused by scarcity, and is instead a question of unequal food distribution or other avoidable factors, then using genetically modified crop technology for its main purpose—to increase food production—is unnecessary. However, if global hunger is caused simply by famine, then genetically modified crops may be necessary, depending on whether or not there are other ways to increase food production and promote food security in famine conditions. In the latter case, the safety concerns associated with genetically modified crops (which will be mentioned later) would need to be weighed against the technology’s possible benefits.

The amount of food produced globally right now is enough to feed every human being on the planet between 2,640 and 4,380 Calories per day (McIntyre et al., 2009). In India, despite the fact that 21% of the country’s population is undernourished (FAO, 2010), they are the number one producer worldwide in 25 different food commodities, and one of the top three producers of at least another 25 commodities (FAOSTAT, 2011). In addition, the developing world alone produces considerable amounts of food in the form of animal products: For example, 50% of the world’s beef and 59% of the world’s pork are produced by the Third World (Swanepoel et al., 2010). If developing countries produce enough food to feed a large percentage of the world, then clearly they are not suffering from low production, and therefore their hunger is nor caused by famine. Somehow, food is just not being distributed to the hungry.

We are clearly not facing a famine today, but what about the next 50 years? Studies have shown that sustainable agriculture produces sufficient yield to sustain the world’s population at least into the next 50 years (Chaumet et al., 2009). It can produce higher yields than the currently widespread agricultural method known as industrialised agriculture (De Schutter, 2010; Pretty et al., 2006). Sustainable agriculture is generally defined as agriculture that uses methods such as intercropping, integrated pest management, cover-cropping, compost, and other inputs that are less likely to harm the soil and the ecosystems in the area. This as opposed to synthetic pesticides and fertilisers (especially petrochemical-based), monoculture, and other things that depend on petroleum or have been shown to degrade the soil, cause erosion, and destroy ecosystems (McIntyre, 2009).

Transgenic crops are clearly not necessary, but are they a practical way to alleviate global hunger? If GM crops decreased productivity and yield in any way, they would not be practical tools to help increase global food production. In addition, if GM crops created problems for the environment or public health, and other ways of providing food for the entire world didn’t involve the safety and environmental concerns associated with GM crops, then they would not be a practical tool for fighting global hunger.

Genetically modified crops have been shown to have adverse health effects in animal studies. For example, one study (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999) showed that GM potatoes caused precancerous growth in the small intestines of rats. Another study concluded that bedding made from GM corncob created endocrine disruption problems in female rats, and even stimulated breast cancer cell growth (Markaverich et al., 2005). In their review, Pryme and Lembcke (2003, p. 6) found it extraordinary that in several studies, “the experimental conditions were varied and several ways were found by which to demonstrate possible health effects of GM-foods.”

Another problem with GM crops is that they can have harmful effects on ecosystems. For example, transgenes from a virus (used to modify plants) can cause the modified plant to become susceptible to insect viruses that were never found in plants before, like in the study done by Dasgupta, Garcia, and Goodman (2001). GM crops can contaminate and hybridise with wild plants, effecting biodiversity (Warwick et al., 2003). In addition, Crops modified with toxic insecticides can contaminate the soil with the toxins (Accinelli, Screpanti, Vicari, and Catizone, 2003). GM crops also do not necessarily increase production, and can even decrease yield. In several different regions, GM crops were shown to have no yield increase, and in a very large study involving 8000 field trials, GM soybeans had a lower yield (Altiere and Rosset, 2002).

The global population’s food needs today and in the future can be fulfilled by sustainable agricultural practices that increase yield. Therefore, genetically modified crops are not necessary. They can also decrease yield in some circumstances, they pose real health risks for humans, and they have the capacity to be destructive to the environment. Sustainable agriculture does not have the risks associated with genetically modified crops. Hence, genetically modified crops are not the most practical option for alleviating global hunger now or in the next 50 years.

References

Accinelli, C., Screpanti, C., Vicari, A., & Pietro Catizone. (2003). Influence of insecticidal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki on the degradation of glyphosate and glufosinate-ammonium in soil samples. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 103(3), 497-507.

Altiere, M. A., & Rosset, P. (2002). Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment, or reduce poverty in the developing world. In Sherlock, R., & Morrey, J. D., Ethical issues in biotechnology (pp. 175-182). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Dasgupta, R., Garcia, B. H. 2nd, & Goodman, R. M. (2001). Systemic spread of an RNA insect virus in plants expressing plant viral movement protein genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 98(9), 4910-4915.

Ewen, S. W. B., & Pusztai, A. (1999). Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet, 354(9187), 1353-1354

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2010). Global hunger declining, but still unacceptably high. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2011). Food and Agricultural commodities production. Retrieved from http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx

Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2011). Famine. Retrieved from  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/famine

Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2011 [II]). Starvation. Retrieved from  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/starvation

Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique & Agricultural Research for Development. (2009). Agrimonde®: Scenarios and Challenges for Feeding the World in 2050. Paris: Chaumet, J. M., Delpeuch, F., Dorin, B. Ghersi, G., Hubert, B., Le Cotty, T., … Treyer, S.

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. (2009). Agriculture at a crossroads: Global report. Washington, DC: McIntyre, B. D., Herren, H. R., Wakhungu, J., & Watson, R. T.

Monsanto. (2011). Sustainable agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.monsanto.com/ourcommitments/Pages/sustainable-agriculture.aspx

Markaverich, B. M., Crowley, J. R., Alejandro, M. A., Shoulars, K., Casajuna, N., Mani, S., … Sharp, J. (2005). Leukotoxin diols from ground corncob bedding disrupt estrous cyclicity in rats and stimulate MCF-7 breast cancer cell proliferation. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(5), 1698-1704.

Pretty, J. N., Noble, A. D., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Hine, R. E., Penning de Vries, F. W., & Morison, J. I. L. (2006).  Resource-Conserving Agriculture Increases Yields in Developing Countries. Environmental Science & Technology, 40(4), 1114-1119.

Pryme, I. F., & Lembcke, R. (2003). In vivo studies on possible health consequences of genetically modified food and feed – with particular regard to ingredients consisting of genetically modified plant materials. Nutrition and Health, 17, 1-8.

The Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA). (2010). The role of livestock in developing communities: Enhancing multifunctionality. Bloemfontein, South Africa: Swanepoel, F., Stroebel, A. and Moyo, S.

United Nations General Assembly. (2010). Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. De Schutter, O. (Ed.).

Warwick, S. I., Simard, M. J., Légère, A., Beckie, H. J., Braun, L., Zhu, B., … Stewart, C. N. (2003). Hybridization between transgenic Brassica napus L. and its wild relatives: Brassica rapa L., Raphanus raphanistrum L., Sinapis arvensis L., and Erucastrum gallicum (Willd.) O.E. Schulz. Theoretical Applied Genetics, 107(3), 528-539.

Posted in Bullshit Review, Social Environmentalist
Tags: agriculture, ecology, environmentalism, ethics, food, genetically modified crops, GMOs, poor, population growth, science

As I have said before:

No. There is no overpopulation problem. There’s an over-consumption problem, a racism problem, a blaming-the-poor problem.

What countries are responsible for the most environmental damage? The wealthy countries, with low population growth rates.

What countries are responsible for exponential resource depletion? The wealthy countries. The US, for example, has 5% of the world’s population and consumes 25-30% of the world’s resources, and contributes 30% of the world’s greenhouse gases.

The population growth rate is slowing down, and we will reach our peak in approximately 2050, at 9 billion. There is enough food produced right now to feed that many people.

People aren’t starving because of our population. The environment isn’t being destroyed because of population. So why are we blaming our problems on population? The only reason I can think of is to lift the blame from the wealthy nations, from ourselves. Treat people in the Third World like over-breeding cattle who can’t think for themselves. Force sterilisation on unwilling women. Breathe a sigh of guilty relief when a few of those cattle die from a natural disaster (that was most likely caused by global warming, a problem created by industrialised nations).

Stop playing the anti-PC game: You know, the one where you claim that anybody who suggests being humane and looking at facts is just being “politically correct.”

I’m glad some of you found solace in the fact that the OP feels the same way you do. Just know that that doesn’t make you any more of a moral person.

Posted in Bullshit Review, Social Environmentalist
Tags: environment, poor, population growth, race, racism

Posted in Social Environmentalist
Tags: anthropology, apathy, ethics, poor, psychology, society

There are two parts to a common argument for belief in pseudoscience and the supernatural:

1. If a rational thinker had experienced an unexplained event, such as something ghost-like or a near-death experience, they would lay down their trust in science and accept that ghosts or the afterlife (or whatever) really do exist.

2. Those who do not believe something exists unless it has been observed scientifically have poor imaginations and no sense of wonder.

These arguments do two things that I feel are truly dishonest:

1. They make the assumption that everybody’s minds are so flawed that a simple event (possibly even a hallucination or a dream) will irreversibly alter their ability to think rationally.

2. They make an ad hominem fallacy: Insult the person you’re debating with (“you have no imagination,”) and make a conclusion based on that insult (“therefore you’re wrong”).

Other arguments I have heard are that a rational argument between a rationalist and a believer will ultimately end in the rationalist believing in pseudoscience; and that because science helps us discover new things all the time, assumptions about souls, etc. are correct.

Let me say, very confidently, that all of these arguments are very incorrect.

I have had an experience. I know lots of people who have had unexplained experiences who do not believe in ghosts or the afterlife. The fallibility of a single person’s perception is why the scientific method is so important. (This is not to say that nobody is capable of combatting an initial assumption with reason). If I went back to my experience with a group of scientists, we may well discover that it was a hallucination/dream or something else that we already know exists. Just because you can’t explain it doesn’t mean it can’t be explained if tested properly.

I had a partner for two years who really changed my views through some very long, detailed debates. I had to do a lot of research to keep up with him, and that research ultimately led me to agree with him. I used to have much more of a distrust of science, and agnostically believed in things like the soul and an afterlife or reincarnation.

Yes, science will always be discovering new things, but those new things will always be grounded in physical truth. We may one day discover that not all of our matter/energy is recycled into the earth, that some of it leaves and we may be able to see where it goes. But we may, on the other hand, discover through scientific testing that every “ghost” that has been seen has been the result of a hallucination. I will not make assumptions that are not based on fact. I see no evidence for a soul or an afterlife.
Here is what I do see:

The universe is gigantic and wonderous and amazing, and we are but specks in all of existence.

Our ability for conscious thought allows us to experience the wonders of living in such a vast universe; our ability for empathy allows us to experience other people’s/creatures’ experiences.

Our existence as a social animal allows for very complex environmental adaptation, where biology, psychology and culture are inextricably linked.

Our complex minds are designed to detect patterns, even where there are none, and explain things before we understand the actual explanations. This is part of our biological heritage, and it is essential to our survival.

The world is both beautiful and horrible, and we are blessed with the ability to feel a huge spectrum of emotions as we experience this world.

There is a great amount of suffering in our world, and we are fully equipped to end most of that suffering. I believe it is our responsibility as dreamers, feelers, thinkers, reasoners, and empaths, to try to alleviate that suffering.

In truth, I feel that what science has helped us discover is far more wondrous and worthy of awe than anything our minds can come up with on their own. Look at a more religious explanation of creation, and compare it to the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution. What simple, yet elegant processes! I fully agree with Shakespeare when he said, “There are more things in heaven and earth…Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Posted in Social Environmentalist
Tags: pseudoscience, religion, science, society

A lot of people don’t seem to understand what feminism is and and how it is different from separatism, so I’m going to use an obnoxiously popular meme to illustrate my point.

The misogynist says, “Woman, go into the kitchen and make me a sammich!”

The non-feminist woman says, “Okay, dear.”

The separatist woman says, “No, you make me a sammich!”

The feminist woman says, “No, you can make your own sammich. And please don’t talk to me like that again.”

The difference is that feminism is the only assertive option. Those who don’t identify as feminist are generally passive to patriarchy in one way or another; either they don’t oppose the sexualisation and sexual exploitation of women, or they feel that sexism no longer exists, or they stereotype men as idiots who only think with their penises, and accept it as normal when a man acts as they expect. They direct their anger towards feminism and feminists instead of standing up for women’s rights.

Separatists are very angry, and have an aggressive ideology. They may view men as morally inferior to women, and may view a simple role reversal between men and women as the remedy for our society’s woes. Some may refer to themselves as “feminist separatists,” but most feminists would do not consider the separatist ideology as compatible with feminism.

Many feminists are angry, too, as we should be. Most people should be angry. However, the feminist philosophy is an assertive one. It involves standing up to power and injustice, and demanding equal treatment. Feminism does not assert that one gender is inferior to any other; in fact, it is the only gender-related philosophy that views all genders as equal. No egalitarian philosophy or strategy can reach its end goal without having a feminist foundation.

Posted in Social Environmentalist
Tags: feminism, gender

Today I had a conversation on a Facebook group about farm animal welfare. This guy asked for information about chicken debeaking, and I tried to help him. He then said:

“BTW, I should make my position clear – I agree debeaking is awful. I am not a fan, but I am a pragmatist. What are the alternatives given the reality on the ground? Anything that would radically increase cost simply won’t be tolerated by producers and consumers.”

Of course, you wouldn’t want to sacrifice anybody’s bottom-line for the welfare of a few million living creatures that are capable of suffering. Think about the customers, who would be deprived of eggs! *Gasp!* Think about the farmers, who would have to start treating their livestock with (a relative amount of) respect!

The argument against ethics in favour of “pragmatism” is as old as slavery. Since the dawn of the exploitative economic system, businesses have whined about how being kind and decent would hurt their profits, or worse, make them go out of business.

I hate to break it to you, but if your business can’t survive without creating suffering, then it shouldn’t survive. Period. It’s not that complex an issue. Slave traders had to find something else to do. And frankly, the only reason a business that devoid in ethics does exist is because capitalism allows it to exist…worse, it encourages it and promotes it.

Posted in Social Environmentalist
Tags: animals, capitalism, economics, ethics

This is a very important concept. It completely debunks the cultural relativist ideas of many liberals, and the moral relativist ideas of some scientists. Wellbeing is factual, and we can measure it and decide what contributes to it and what doesn’t.

Posted in Social Environmentalist
Tags: ethics, human nature, religion, science

The point of language is to communicate; to get messages across to other people. Some do this more eloquently than others—however, most people do it effectively. No matter, waht, yuo say or belief. You could still understand the previous sentence. So what’s the big deal about grammar, punctuation, and spelling?

Some people have this idea that the Internet is like an college essay, where someone has to write perfect prose or they and their views don’t deserve respect. By the way, did you catch that? I used the words “they” and “their” to refer to a single hypothetical person. This is technically grammatically incorrect. Yet everybody, even the most snobbish grammar-Nazi, uses those words in that way. The “correct” option would be to say: “Someone has to write perfect prose or he/she and his/her views don’t deserve respect.” We do not have neutral pronouns in English, and since all language evolves, we have started using they/their. This is perfectly reasonable.

Language isn’t law, it’s a template for communication, and we decide the content. Or even more poetically, it’s a canvas, and we choose the paint. Sometimes the paint is very colourful, but a painting rarely becomes so abstract that we can’t make out the picture. This, of course, isn’t true for actual visual art.

Some professional writers have horrible grammar. It’s the editor’s job to fix that before anything gets published. Those are the rules right now for published, professional work. Comments on blogs, and even blogs themselves, are frequently not professional work.

I’ve heard people say that they lose respect for people when they don’t follow the rules of grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I can understand the instant, visceral reaction to “bad” writing, but humans are capable of reason as well as visceral reaction and emotion. Read the content of what that horrible speller wrote, and translate it if you have such a terrible bias that you can’t handle it. It’s possible that that person was making a very valid point, and you’re not allowing it to sink in due to your own prejudice.

Another argument is that people are just “lazy.” I’m a lazy writer. I don’t spend huge amounts of time on my blog posts unless I have to research citations. Yet my grammar and spelling are relatively good. Why? I come from a highly educated, middle-class family. My father majored in English. I am a privileged individual, and would never blame somebody for choosing not to waste lots of their time perfecting their writing based on inane rules that are dictated by the most privileged social classes.

Why do people who have education less focused on grammar or lower quality education tend to have “poorer” grammar and spelling? It’s not because they’re stupid. People don’t instinctively pick up on grammar rules. This is evidenced by the entire population of New Zealand, which insist’s on putting apostrophe’s where they dont belong and taking them out where they do. I may make fun of this sometimes, but at the end of the day, I don’t judge people based on their apostrophe-placing behaviour.

Ever noticed that people in lower classes and more rural areas tend to have more “slang” in their vernacular—more of a deviation from “proper” English? Nothing to do with intelligence, once again. In fact, I’d argue that their forms of English are more evolved. Language constantly changes, yet fairly recently we have decided to stop those changes in their tracks, which creates yet another form of socio-economic stratification, instead of treating all forms of language equally.

In conclusion, your objection to bad grammar does not reflect stupidity on the writer’s part. It reflects lack of comprehension on your part.

Here’s what Stephen Fry has to say on the matter:

Posted in Bullshit Review, Social Environmentalist
Tags: class, culture, elitism, writing