Showing posts with label culture11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture11. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 7, 2009

My article at Culture11

Okay, so it may not be the subject of my passion, or the usual sort of writing I do, but I put together an op/ed piece and got it published at the fantastic Culture11...

You can read and comment on it here.

Thanks!

UPDATE: I think I'd like to add how appreciative I am of Conor and James and Joe and the rest of the editors and staff at Culture11, not only for letting me join in the conversation there, but also for creating such a wonderful forum in which to have the conversation. It's a breath of fresh air on the internet (a rare thing, indeed). I think others will back me up on this....

Monday, December 15, 2008

Censorship at Culture11

Following is Hermione Gray's post "In Defense of the Hook-up Culture" in its entirety. Ms. Gray's post was cut from LadyBlog due to its supposed "moral stupidity" though I would take moral stupidity over bad censorship practice any day of the week.

By Hermione Gray

Poor Charles Blow. It must be hard to produce a fresh and entertaining column for the New York Times on a regular basis, even if he does only publish on alternate Saturdays. Today’s column critiques the Millennial practice of “hooking up” and the supposed death of traditional dating, which has, of course, been done to death. Blow offers nothing new, but to briefly recap: “Girls get tired of hooking up because they want it to lead to a relationship (the guys don’t), and, as they get older, they start to realize that it’s not a good way to find a spouse.”

Critics of hooking up rely heavily on the unsupported myth that women are more interested lasting romantic attachments than are men. But according to a 2003 survey of 12,000 men and women, Nearly 66% of men, compared with 51% of women agree with the statement, ‘It is better to get married than go through life single’. Moreover, women file two-thirds of all divorce suits, although men are only slightly more likely to be accused of infidelity and allegations of physical abuse are rare.

If most people of both genders want to be married eventually, why has dating given way to hooking up? I think that the so-called “hook-up culture” is the natural result of a cultural shift that has permitted men and women to form more and deeper platonic attachments: as fellow students, as work colleagues, as good friends and confidants. The ritual of traditional dating – in which you took an attractive near-stranger to dinner in order to get to know her better – was popular in an era of gender-segregated colleges and workplaces, which offered few other opportunities for meaningful interaction between the sexes.

Blow cites a 2006 academic paper with findings that reflect my own experience: people usually hook up with friends rather than strangers. While it seems true that men experience, on average, fewer downsides to purely casual sex, the hook-up culture may encourage more rather than less responsibility. After all, you will see a friend again, especially if you have many mutual friends. While sex between strangers does happen, I’d argue that today’s paradigmatic hook-up partners know each other better than a typical 1950s couple on a third date at the drive-in movie theater, and are more likely to be on speaking terms a few months later. A finding from the Centers for Disease Control perhaps supports this view: today’s young people are having less sex than their elders despite the hook-up dynamic.

It’s ironic that the rebellious Boomer generation has reached the stage of life at which they can be found bleating, like their elders, “Social change is ba-a-d!” But love, as Richard Curtis reminds us, remains all around, whatever its complex and evolving forms.

UPDATE: This is from one of my comments on the original thread, responding to Joe Carter...
And I guess, in the end, I simply feel that sometimes even more can be gained from a piece like this than lost. After all, sometimes the most valuable argument is the one we have to argue against. I, for one, find the “hook-up” culture morally shallow and just overall very sad. I think leaving the post up and commenting on it would have been a valuable contribution to this site, if only to allow those of us who disagreed completely with it to be able to air our thoughts and make our case.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Want ads

Via Culture11

Ross Douthat seeks a favorable resolution to the abortion debate, geopolitical strife, and the GOP's problems with working class voters so that he can happily write about nothing but movies and baseball. (And novels!)

Christopher Hitchens seeks young contrarian intern. Duties include fetching ice (15 minutes twice per day), intimidating fact-checkers (30 minutes per day), and filing pieces published under his byline the previous day (7 hours).

David Brooks seeks bright Ivy League humanities major keen on the life of the mind, long conversations about pop sociology, and a willingness to be mentored into a future star in book publishing or opinion journalism. Benefits: you’re the envy of all other NY Times op-ed interns. Drawbacks: must ghost write one questionably reasoned (though often enjoyable) column per quarter as sop to movement conservatism.

Bill Kristol seeks graduate student in marketing or public relations to transcribe Republican National Committee strategy memos into New York Times content management system.
...and many, many more...

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Tribulationalism

I like Joe Carter and Andrew Sullivan, so when Sullivan starts talking about Christianists, I think he's referring more to the variety of folk that Carter seems to speak critically of in his "Deadly Trappings" series...

Money-quote:
I’m sure that somewhere in the three dozen novels that comprise the Left Behind series the Gospel message is presented. But there is something horribly wrong when the greatest story ever told is buried beneath a third-rate tale of the apocalypse.
Couldn't have said it any better myself...it's kind of how I felt about The Passion when it came out. Then again, I've personally boycotted that film, so I admit to never having seen it. Still....

...I think Christianist is a harsh term. So is "theocon." There are some radical Christians out there, but simply lumping a group together based on their religious beliefs is unfair--it's our actions that define us, and our intent. Thus we come by the term Islamist, as they have a specific goal to actually bring about a global Islamic caliphate. Their intent is to dispose of all other religions and forms of government. Their actions are often violent.

Those Sullivan deems Christianist, however, are typically not looking to establish a theocratic state, but rather have some of their cultural beliefs infused in government--can we honestly say that pro-life legislation would usher in a Christian Theocracy? Does a ban on gay marriage truly constitute the sort of radicalism associated with a term like "theocon"? I'm all for gay marriage, but I won't stoop to calling its opponents bigots or theocons. At times they are. Usually, they're not.

Infrastructure

Conor writes:
I’m much less averse than some conservatives to big infrastructure projects, and I’d particularly like to see high speed rail spring up between various American cities, although I must admit that I’ll always love the drive between Los Angeles and San Francisco...
I'm with him on this one, for a number of reasons. First of all, infrastructure is one area that the government should have some hand in, especially big infrastructure--which is necessary in this big country of ours. Of course it's best when private industry is involved, and when has this not been the case? But to form a really cohesive inter-state infrastructure you need Federal involvement.

I'm also completely in favor of the high-speed rail idea. This country could benefit greatly from rail between cities, coasts...but we simply don't have enough actual rail on the ground to make passenger trains feasible. We need dedicated passenger rails, and to do this, quite frankly, we need government to light the spark. Eventually, I think the rails could not only be environmentally a boon to this country, but economically profitable. I love taking the train when I have the chance. If I could easily and quickly get to say LA or San Antonio or Chicago by hopping a train, I'd do it in a flash. No car repairs. No $4.00 gas.

Monday, October 27, 2008

War, What is it Good For?

Writes John Schwenkler:

The reasons to disown the Iraq war and the kind of foreign policy thinking that got us into it go far beyond a desire to restore the Republican Party’s electoral hopes, however. For this war was also a profoundly unconservative war — a tremendously costly attempt at “democracy promotion” that was enabled by a “Trust us, we’re the executive branch” approach to decision-making that probably had the Founders rolling over in their graves. There’s a reason, too, why it was so widely opposed by Christian leaders: for war is indeed, as Pope John Paul II argued in 2003, a defeat for humanity, and the willingness of so many professed Christians to acquiesce in the unnecessary invasion of a foreign country and the consequent deaths of soldiers and civilians alike marked a profound moral failing. Is the prospect of admitting a mistake so horrifying that basic moral principles count for nothing?

As exciting as I would find a broader rethinking of American foreign policy, perhaps along the lines proposed by Andrew Bacevich, the proposal on offer here is nowhere near as radical as that. Copping to failure in Iraq does not mean repudiating the Cold War legacy of Reagan, nor does it mean abandoning the fight against terrorism or even the push to spread democracy. All that it is, to borrow a much-abused turn of phrase, is a matter of sensitivity to conditions on the ground. The sooner conservatives admit to their mistakes, the better their chances of being heard from again.

Short of such an admission, it’s hard to see why they’d deserve the hearing.
I agree. If we hope to maintain a robust armed forces capable of humanitarian intervention, and capable of applying pressure to dictatorial regimes we need to stop invading countries like Iraq when the situation doesn't merit it. If it is not a clear and present danger or genocide that we can prevent, or the an escalation that needs to be stopped, we should not engage. Iran could become a clear and present danger. Darfur is a genocide we should prevent. Kosovo was an escalation of events that we were able to stop. Iraq? Iraq was stable enough. We could have used other means.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

My Article @ Culture11



My article "Awakenings" is on the front page of Culture11. I'm feeling rather good about this actually.

Prep School for the Candidates?

Joe Carter has some novel ideas on the subject. A crash course for our increasingly inexperienced Presidential nominees (and VP nominees) might be just the thing.
The 101-week curriculum would begin the week before Inauguration Day and end just in time for the student to organize their campaign for the coming primary season.
The list includes a course at St. Johns College in the great classics of Western civilization; a stint at the War Colleges; some time well-spent learning diplomacy at State; and some (obviously) much needed economics lessons at George Mason. Seven courses in all...

Not a bad idea, eh? Too bad it will never happen.