Tag Archives: Philosophy

Neckties are Sexist

Posted on by
Reply

If the feminist movement changed anything, it was the rate at which people would be offended by otherwise innocuous things. From FoxNews:

A group in charge of promoting Florida’s economic development released a new logo on Thursday, and it is causing a gender debate.
Enterprise Florida has unveiled its new logo: the word “FLORIDA” written in green letters, with the “I” represented as orange necktie. The tag line reads, “The Perfect Climate For Business.”
But some women business leaders said the logo is sexist, saying that most women don’t wear neckties.

“I thought immediately that it set us back, all the work that we’ve done. It’s not that they have to make it pink or ‘girlie,’ but maybe put a briefcase or something like an iPhone or smartphone in there to represent business,” said Pamela Rogan, the President of the Central Florida Chapter of NAWBO, the National Association of Women Business Owners. “There are a lot of other icons I think can better represent business.”

Rogan, and other women who have posted their comments online after the new logo was unveiled on Thursday, said if the idea is to attract new business to the state, it may not attract some female CEOs, MyFoxOrlando.com reports.

“When you’re going to a strange place, and you think that’s the stigma that’s there, you may think twice,” she said.

Enterprise Florida Public Relations Manager Sean Helton says the group has no intention of changing the logo.

“We feel confident in the brand, as a clear and effective message to both businesses in the state and worldwide, that Florida is a top destination for business,” he told MyFoxOrlando.com.
Helton added that the company interviewed 25 female executives before the logo launched, and none of them had any complaints about it.

Things to notice:

  • Most women don’t wear neckties, so neckties are sexist. Keep in mind that no one is stopping a woman from wearing one except fashion sense.
  • There is no “National Association of Men Business Owners”, but this is not sexist.
  • Having a necktie on a logo sets back the feminist movement enough that it takes away “all the work [a feminist organization] has done”.
  • People don’t notice sexism unless someone who is actively looking for it finds it (25 females didn’t find the sexism when tasked with doing that very thing, but one feminist who was not invited to do so did anyway).
  • iPhones, Smarthphones, and Briefcases can all apparently replace the letter “I” in “FLORIDA” as well a necktie.
  • A necktie in a logo for a company warrants a news story and press release.

This whole story, of course, will be made meaningless by the imminent defeat of sexism in regard to neckties. Soon, feminism will wipe away any memory of the connection between neckties and masculinity, and then the logo will be feminism-approved, to the delight of moderns everywhere. Now that’s progress.

Productively Superficial

Posted on by
Reply

I recently added “Lifehacker” to my list of followed blogs. I did so with some reservation; despite the fact I am a “Computer Scientist” by diploma, I try to avoid technology websites in general because the worldview represented is as vapid as whatever trend is being pushed.

It seems that perhaps I ought to have listened to my instincts as I am so often not inclined to do. The first article I was presented with was “Work Less to Get More Done” by Scott Young. Now, contradictory title aside, the article primarily highlights a particular way to list out tasks in such a way that one can optimally arrange them for execution. There’s nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but it certainly doesn’t entail “working less” or “getting more done” for the amount of work being put in. It just means having more realistic expectations. That shouldn’t be a new concept to anyone who spends any time reflecting.

However, I don’t know that the author of this article spends all that much time reflecting. There seems to be a trend today towards a worship of productivity. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this obsession is that no one ever defines with we are producing, simply the methods involved in producing whatever this “product” is more effectively. Most motivational speakers will leave it up to the reader or listener to determine what “products” they would like to produce, but that ultimately means there is an entire category of websites, books, and personalities which is dedicated to telling people how to swing a hammer at whatever we, individually, would be damn well pleased to swing a hammer at.

Our friend Scott is confused by deep thinking in this regard. He has an entire article that is called “What the heck is spirituality?”, a question that was answered, in essence, for nearly three thousand years ago in works that are now publicly available. Spirituality, if invisible to a postmodern, is only invisible because a postmodern cannot see anything except matter and his own will. He does not question why he might have a will or where this matter comes from or why it exists. To do so would mean more than regurgitation. To do so would involve true, deep reasoning, which is something I fear most of the “productivity crowd” (as I’ll start referring to them) simply can’t do. “Swing!” they say at the man holding a hammer, never telling him why he should swing or to what end. Superficiality seems to be the hallmark of postmodernism and this productivity crowd.

His website also has an article describing why he is an atheist, which includes a list of “Common Arguments Against Atheism” that features none of the most common or basic arguments that have existed in the past several thousand years, such as the need for a Prime Mover. But again, postmodernism and the productivity crowd don’t seem to be too concerned with deep analysis of the history of philosophy or theology. If pop atheism says it, it must be true (his list of recommended reading features multiple philosophy books by the anti-philosopher, Richard Dawkins, for instance).

However, my primary disagreement with the guy occurred the moment I loaded his web-page and read articles like “Balance is Overrated” and “Consistency Is Overrated”. I’m sure people who depend on others or who are depended on would disagree with both of those assertions. People like those who live in societies and communities and families. “What if I told you everything you know about how to learn, study, and succeed in school was wrong?” claims another ad for one of his books. Well, if I was told that, I would wonder how a 23 year old had discovered what no trained educator had ever found and reported. Discussing the failings of our schools and universities is a topic for another post, but if you end up “reading 70 books in a year” and “acing tests”, I return to my previous claim of superficiality. I’m not sure why we soak up superficiality as a culture as much as we do, to the point that we have entire parts of our economy dedicated to marketing it…

But hey, the guy has several other non-accomplished people backing up his claims, so they must be true! Just ask the guy who can make you fluent in a language in three months.

The Importance of Truth Over Trend

Posted on by
Reply

I stumbled upon this tidbit (taken slightly out of context and applied vigorously to the forehead), from the Underground Grammarian, a newly added site to my already insurmountable mountain of “to-read” material:

“…They are more informed than learned; they put faith in every trend without having explored the merit of any tradition; they know “findings,” not lore; they have “perceptions,” not understanding; they are “innovative,” not original; they are enthusiastic about the “relevant,” ignorant of the permanent. Their knowledge of the great history of thought is so scanty that when they have any ideas at all they imagine they have discovered fire, and visit upon us whole plagues of novelties and gimmicks.”

They, in context, are professors at a particular university, but for a moment, we will suspend this knowledge. If one tries to construct an image of They based on the descriptions given in the quotation, it is seen immediately that this statement could be applied to any number of Moderns or Postmoderns today. The quote, like any good writing, is stuffed to its limits with useful information.

“Trend Vs Tradition” is the cornerstone of this writing. It may have been unintentional at the time of writing, but it captures the failings of postmodernism succinctly. “Trendiness” and “Hipness” are really nothing more than rejections of traditions in favor of popular trends. And, as the author goes on, this is primarily a problem because Postmoderns have not “explored the merit of any tradition”. Had they done so, they might have had a chance at continuing the great intellectual work of previous generations. Instead, they simply repeat mistakes in a popular and trendy way.

“Perceptions Vs Understanding” is the great battle between the incoherent system of relativism and the necessary system of objective reality.

Each point could be expounded upon, and ought to be. However, it is quite past my bed time and I ought even more to sleep than to expound.

I’m a Conservative, But What Does That Mean?

Posted on by
Reply

“I was raised in a Christian home”

So begins the testimony of myriad Christians in myriad communities around the world. The same statement could be said about political views.

“I was raised in a Conservative home”

While there are certainly disagreements among people (typically those who are not Christians) about what being a “Christian” actually means, that term is much less likely to cause confusion than “Conservative”. And there is a pretty good reason for this.

Being a “Conservative” or a “Liberal” can mean any number of things in any number of contexts. To be Conservative with nature might be seen as a Liberal view in some cases. To be Liberal with your hospitality might be seen as something that southern Conservative states are known for. The terms have meanings,  but they are pretty general definitions.

As simply as can be stated, a Conservative leans towards preserving the way things are, and a Liberal leans towards changing things. A Conservative’s position, therefore, is more obvious than a Liberal’s (who may have different interpretations of ‘change’). At the same time, Conservatives often never break away from the stereotype that they only wish to preserve the status quo because they are afraid of change.

I’ve heard people define both terms specifically for themselves, but I haven’t done so myself. I’ve stated why I’m a political/social/religious/philosophical Conservative in the past,  but inexplicably I’ve forgotten the crux of the entire message: What does that mean?

Here is my definition.

A Conservative believes the world is as it is because those that preceded them had some sense of right and wrong. Conservatives do not believe the world is perfect, but that it is far better than popular opinion would have it.

A Conservative believes change is neither good nor evil, but certainly not always inevitable. When change comes, the Conservative desires sufficient reason to embrace it. If a case cannot be made that satisfies the Conservative, it will be rejected and opposed. If a case can be made, the Conservative will insist that the change occur gradually, and that it not proceed farther than was intended originally.

A Conservative seeks to preserve what is good and not to reinvent it. A Conservative seeks to trust what has been given them not unquestionably, but respectfully.

A Conservative believes humans have fundamentally always been the same sort of creature. That power corrupts anyone. That work strengthens character. That we must subject our passions to our wills, lest we lose our civilization.

I think that just about does it.