Friday, May 30, 2014

When I was attacked by a stranger who had gone off his meds—On misogynistic spree killers

Note: I am not using the latest spree killer's name in my title and only using his last name in my text because people like him want their moment of fame, and I will not be part of giving him his. See How to Stop Mass Shootings.

I recently told Emma I wished we lived in a world where she could walk outside anywhere at any time in safety. She answered, "You're the one who's been attacked on the street."

She was referring to one afternoon on Victory Boulevard in Los Angeles. Now, I'm a guy with decent street smarts—I've walked in poor neighborhoods at all hours for much of my life, and I'd never been mugged or beaten by strangers, probably because I tend to dress in cheap clothes and while I hope I'm not more intimidating than any guy of average height and weight, I like to think I don't look like an easy target. But maybe I was just lucky for decades.

My luck ran out when I left our apartment in North Hollywood and saw a young Hispanic man of about twenty who I'll call the kid pissing in the bushes in front of the next building. Thinking he was drunk or tripping, I gave him a look that was meant to say, "Really, dude. Don't piss where families live."

Which, I grant, was a failure of street smarts. To this day, I do not know why I acknowledged him. Street smarts call for being simultaneously aware and indifferent, so you look like you know what's going on around you and don't care so long as no one hassles you.

The kid started following me. I assumed I was unlucky enough to be going in the same direction as he was until he ran up and began pummeling me. He was tall and wiry and half my age or younger, so he had the advantages of reach and strength. He also had the adrenaline advantage of being bi-polar and off his meds. I now know what facing berserkers was like.

I blocked his blows as well as I could, which is to say, I was pretty bloody by the time a driver pulled over and jumped out of his car to help me. The kid ran off. When the cops found him, I learned he was bipolar and had gone off his meds. I could have pressed charges, but I didn't—I was told the kid was horrified by what he had done, and they doubted he would let it happen again. I suspect that's true.

What I took from that was not that people with mental health problems should be feared—like most of us, they're more likely to be victims than victimizers—but that mental health deserves more resources in the US. Statistically, people with mental issues are more likely to be a danger to themselves and others.

We know the recent spree killer was in that category. He had therapists, and he said in his manifesto that he had been prescribed Risperidone, "an antipsychotic drug mainly used to treat schizophrenia (including adolescent schizophrenia), schizoaffective disorder, the mixed and manic states of bipolar disorder, and irritability in people with autism", but had refused to take it.

Which is why I was surprised when Jessica Valenti argued that Attributing the rampage in Isla Vista to 'a madman' ignores a stark truth about our society. Like many feminists, she thinks it's not about whether misogynistic mass murderers are crazy; it's about their ideology. But defining the Isla Vista killer's ideology is trickier than you might think. As Ally Fogg noted in Madman or MRA? Looking beyond easy answers to the Santa Barbara massacre:
In Rodger's manifesto there is no sign of even a slight interest in gender politics. He does not use the vocabulary or logic of MRAs, there is no ranting at ‘feminazis’ or other tell-tale signs of MRA ideology. Indeed, it is striking that the manifesto, unlike that of Anders Breivik, reveals no kind of political consciousness at all. For Rodger, this all appears to have been entirely personal.
I hate saying anything in defense of pick-up artists, aka PUAs, but, like capitalists, they're exploiters who think what's legal is fair. Their code is reprehensible, but it does not call for going beyond the law. As for people who think PUAs are examples of traditional male values, traditional men despise men who use women—they were called cads and lotharios, and now they're called creeps and PUAs and men to watch out for. For actual traditional male values, see a little about America's idea of cowboys and traditional male values.

If Rodger's misogyny can be called an ideology, another question arises. What ideologies have not been used as an excuse by killers? Michael Carneal killed three members of a Christian prayer group and wounded five others—should atheists be blamed? Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinians and wounded 125 others—should Judaism be blamed? John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo terrorized Washington, DC, with sniper killings, planning to kill six white people a day—should the Nation of Islam or black racists in general be blamed?

In The Disturbing Internet Footprint Of Santa Barbara Shooter Elliot Rodger, Kashmir Hill notes, "His mental disturbance seems as much about class as gender warfare." Based on his manifesto, Rodger's misogyny was a subset of his misanthropy—his first victims were his male roommates. A self-identified Eurasian, he was obsessed with the white blonde women that he thought he deserved because he was rich. What he wanted was shaped by his culture, but what he did was not, and he knew his culture would stop him if it could—he sent his manifesto to his therapist when he knew it would be too late.

Recommended/related:

'PUAhate' and 'ForeverAlone': inside Elliot Rodger's online life | World news | theguardian.com

Anthony Kubiak - Using Murder: The Social Construction of Serial Homicide: "Despite the fact that serial killers are proportionately African-American, sometimes female, do not disproportionately attack women and children, and are quite unlikely, if ever, to have a cult motivation, groups continued to treat the stereotype as real."

Thursday, May 29, 2014

I wrote someone's "favorite badass female character"!

This is the sort of thing that makes a writer's day. At There's No Such Thing As Luck: Roadtrip Wednesday, answering the question "Who's your favorite badass female character?", Jes lists three, and says this about the protagonist of Cats Have No Lord: "Lizelle is an independent woman who uses her sexuality and her wits to live the life she wants, a life that she puts aside in order to save the world (and herself)."

Now I want to write prequel called Lizelle the Liar. Maybe someday.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

a little about America's idea of cowboys and traditional male values

I've always been a fan of Gene Autry's Cowboy Code:
  • A cowboy never takes unfair advantage - even of an enemy.
  • A cowboy never betrays a trust. He never goes back on his word.
  • A cowboy always tells the truth.
  • A cowboy is kind and gentle to small children, old folks, and animals.
  • A cowboy is free from racial and religious intolerances.
  • A cowboy is always helpful when someone is in trouble.
  • A cowboy is always a good worker.
  • A cowboy respects womanhood, his parents and his nation's laws.
  • A cowboy is clean about his person in thought, word, and deed.
  • A cowboy is a Patriot.
It doesn't say explicitly that a cowboy should treat everyone with respect, but maybe he knew that had already been covered in Hopalong Cassidy's Creed for American Boys and Girls: "If you want to be respected, you must respect others. Show good manners in every way."

And in Wild Bill Hickock's Deputy Marshal's Code of Conduct: "I will be polite and courteous."

And in Roy Rogers' Riders Club Rules: "Be courteous and polite."

I also found a pleasantly socialist sentiment in The Lone Ranger Creed: "Men should live by the rule of what is best for the greatest number."

And some good Old Cowboy's Advice: "Words that soak into your ears are whispered, not yelled."

Those, and more, are at The Cowboy Code.

And I found Autry's "The Death of Mother Jones", which has nothing to do with this post, but is another reason I like the guy:



Since I'm rambling about Gene Autry, the Autry National Center is a great place to visit in Los Angeles.

Friday, May 23, 2014

Two questions about reparations that no one will answer, or The Case against Reparations

If you don't know much about racism in America, I recommend Ta-Nehisi Coates' The Case for Reparations. It's written by a man who doesn't see the irony in comparing Barack Obama with Malcolm X (see notes below), and who won't tell you that even slaves looked down on "white trash" or that Mississippi's poll tax law reduced the number of qualified white voters from 130,000 to 68,000, but it's well-written and well-researched. Yet, despite the title, Coates doesn't address the two most important questions:

1. How do you institute reparations for slavery in the 21st century? Coates mentions Conyers' bill, HR 40, that calls for studying how to institute reparations, but neither he nor Conyers actually have a suggestion. I suspect the reason is in the answer to the next question:

2. How do you justify instituting reparations for generational black poverty while excluding the descendants of indentured servants, the American Indians and Mexican-Americans whose land was taken from them, the Japanese-American, German-American, and Italian-Americans who were put in concentration camps when the US fought the countries they came from, and the working class people of all hues who have been exploited by the rich for as long as this country has existed?

Jamelle Bouie tried to answer the first question in Reparations should be paid to black Americans: Here is how America should pay. I commented there:
One question is whether the descendants of black slaveowners, from Anthony Johnson, the first black slaveowner in English-speaking North America, to William Ellison, who may have been the richest at the time the Civil War began, should be rewarded for owning slaves.

The problem with using the census for reparations is that it's self-reporting. For example, "An estimated net 1.2 million Americans of the 35 million Americans identified in 2000 as of “Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin,” as the census form puts it, changed their race from “some other race” to “white” between the 2000 and 2010 censuses." If there are reparations available for being black, an awful lot of us who've been "white" will happily correct our forms to show we're "black".
Henry Louis Gates Jr. did a fine rebuttal of the rationale for reparations in How to End the Slavery Blame-Game (NYTimes.com):
While we are all familiar with the role played by the United States and the European colonial powers like Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Spain, there is very little discussion of the role Africans themselves played. And that role, it turns out, was a considerable one, especially for the slave-trading kingdoms of western and central Africa. These included the Akan of the kingdom of Asante in what is now Ghana, the Fon of Dahomey (now Benin), the Mbundu of Ndongo in modern Angola and the Kongo of today’s Congo, among several others.

For centuries, Europeans in Africa kept close to their military and trading posts on the coast. Exploration of the interior, home to the bulk of Africans sold into bondage at the height of the slave trade, came only during the colonial conquests, which is why Henry Morton Stanley’s pursuit of Dr. David Livingstone in 1871 made for such compelling press: he was going where no (white) man had gone before.

How did slaves make it to these coastal forts? The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred.

Advocates of reparations for the descendants of those slaves generally ignore this untidy problem of the significant role that Africans played in the trade, choosing to believe the romanticized version that our ancestors were all kidnapped unawares by evil white men, like Kunta Kinte was in “Roots.” The truth, however, is much more complex: slavery was a business, highly organized and lucrative for European buyers and African sellers alike.
As historian Eric Williams noted, “Slavery was not born of racism: rather, racism was the consequence of slavery.” So the real question is not whether there should be reparations for slavery. It's whether there should be reparations for capitalism. I say yes, and I agree with Martin Luther King. The only viable reparation is Basic Income for everyone.

Notes

1. Coates says in the essay, "In the contest of upward mobility, Barack and Michelle Obama have won. But they’ve won by being twice as good—and enduring twice as much." But neither Obama's academic or political record suggests he was twice as good or endured twice as much as his rivals, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

2. Neo-liberal identitarians like Coates tend to ignore the man Malcolm X became after he left the Nation of Islam. I would love to see Coates address Malcolm's rejection of capitalism:
Most of the countries that were colonial powers were capitalist countries and the last bulwark of capitalism today is America and it’s impossible for a white person today to believe in capitalism and not believe in racism. You can’t have capitalism without racism. And if you find a person without racism and you happen to get that person into conversation and they have a philosophy that makes you sure they don’t have this racism in their outlook, usually they’re socialists or their political philosophy is socialism.
And of identitarianism:
I believe that there will be ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those who do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the system of exploitation. I believe that there will be that kind of clash, but I don't think it will be based on the color of the skin...

Thursday, May 22, 2014

creators, advice about haters via the brilliant Felicia Day

We watched episode 6 of the Guild last night. One storyline is about a game creator who can't create anything new because he knows he'll be attacked by haters. Felicia Day's character tells him that when he lets haters keep him from creating, they aren't just hurting him—they're hurting the people who love his work.

Which is so very true. We don't create for haters, we don't create despite haters, and we don't create to prove anything to haters. We create for lovers.

It's a good day to tell some artists you love their work.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

On humans believing things despite facts, and on de-friending friends online

I hope before I die to accept something I've known intellectually all my adult life: humans are crazy. But I'm human, so I'll probably keep thinking that reason matters.

The latest popular article on the subject, Why Do People Persist in Believing Things That Just Aren't True?, suggests scam artists are right: you simply can't reason with our species. If you want to change humans, you have to flatter or terrify us. But there is one bit of hope for a third way:
It’s only after ideology is put to the side that a message itself can change, so that it becomes decoupled from notions of self-perception.
That's why I keep hoping for Basic Income: there are conservatives, liberals, and socialists who support it.

Anyway, I'm tired of trying to reason with people online. On Facebook, I defriended two people who kept pushing their ideology in comments on my posts, then sent them this message:
Just wanted to say I hate that Facebook uses a friend metaphor for following people, because I'm not annoyed with you personally. I'm just tired of dogged disagreement based on ideology. I'll be perfectly happy to see you the next time we run into each other.
 In 1991, during the riots that followed the acquittals of the cops who beat him, Rodney King asked, "Can we all get along?" I'm not expecting an answer anytime soon.

An article for racists who take IQ out of context

Here's a nice and easy article so busy people with short attention spans will have no excuse: IQ isn't fixed at birth, can increase – USATODAY.com
In 1955, Norway began extending compulsory middle school education by two years. Galloway and her colleague Christian Brinch, from the department of economics at the University of Oslo, analyzed how this additional schooling might affect IQ. 
Using data on men born between 1950 and 1958, the researchers looked at the level of schooling by age 30. They also looked at IQ scores of the men when they were 19. 
"The size of the effect was quite large," she said. Comparing IQ scores before and after the education reform, the average increased by 0.6 points, which correlated with an increase in IQ of 3.7 points for an addition year of schooling, Galloway said. 
"We are only able to study men, because we use data on IQ from the Norwegian military's draft assessment, which basically all men undergo around the age of 19. Women are not included in the draft," she explained.
So when you speak of IQ and race, factor in wealth and education, or your conclusions are meaningless.

For a thorough debunking of Nicholas Wade: On the Origin of White Power | The Primate Diaries, Scientific American Blog Network

And: Nicholas Wade and race: building a scientific façade « Violent metaphors

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

The silliest thing Audre Lorde ever said?

"The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House" is the title of an essay by Audre Lorde that some feminists love. I haven't read it, so I can't critique the content, but I can critique the title. Anyone who has worked with a hammer or a pick knows the master's tool are among the very best things for dismantling the master's house.

I'm reminded of this bit from Somerset Maugham's "The Philosopher", where a Chinese philosopher speaks to Maugham around 1920:
"But you, do you know what you are doing?" he exclaimed. "What is the reason for which you deem yourselves our betters? Have you excelled us in arts or letters? Have our thinkers been less profound than yours? Has our civilisation been less elaborate, less complicated, less refined than yours? Why, when you lived in caves and clothed yourselves with skins we were cultured people. Do you know that we tried an experiment which is unique in the history of the world? We sought to rule this great country not by force, but by wisdom. And for centuries we succeeded. Then why does the white man despise the yellow? Shall I tell you? Because he has invented the machine gun. That is your superiority. We are a defenceless horde and you can blow us into eternity. You have shattered the dream of our philosophers that the world could be governed by the power of law and order. And now you are teaching our young men your secret. You have thrust your hideous invention upon us. Do you not know that there are in this country four hundred millions of the most practical and industrious people in the world? Do you think it will take us long to learn? And what will become of your superiority when the yellow man can make as good guns as the white and fire them as straight? You have appealed to the machine gun and by the machine gun shall you be judged."
I checked Lorde's write-up on Wikipedia. I was amused to see that her legal name was Audrey; poets just have a streak of pretension. Apparently she did a little factory work, but she can't have done much, or she would know that if you want to change the world, you have to make the master's tools your own.

Monday, May 19, 2014

dance video of the day: Kiesza - Hideaway - one take!

Kiesza - Hideaway (Official Video) - YouTube:

Writers, two tips for what to do when a scene isn't working

1. Delete it. Not everything has to be shown in a story. As good playwrights know, having things happen offstage can be the best choice.

2. Heighten the tension. That advice underlies Raymond Chandler's advice for murder mysteries: "When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand." But tension can also be psychological. In a strong scene, several kinds of tension will be at work, and the reader will want to know how they all will resolve.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

why socialist atheists in the US should be more tolerant of religion

At How Do You Know You Know? | The Dream Café, I left this comment:
I'm going to say a little about religion and then I'm going to drop it because Steve's an atheist and I don't like disagreeing with people's beliefs on their blogs without a better reason than "I disagree".

There are at least two approaches to religion, one that focuses on certainty and one that accepts mystery. These are not tidy divisions, but organized religions tend to be of the first sort—regardless of the goals of the individuals, most religious organizations end up serving the rich, which is why reds often rail against priests of all faiths.

But the second sort is a metaphorical approach to justice. Throw that out, and you throw out Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X. Throw it out, and there's no League of the Just to become the Communist League. Throw it out, and you lose most of humanity's history of fighting to end inequality.

There is a pragmatic reason for reds to be more tolerant of religion. In the US today, 77% of the population identifies as Christian; 36% view socialism favorably. Tactically, it makes more sense to work with religious people than fight them.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Euthanasia Rollercoaster: A Good Way to Die for Someone Else

The Euthanasia Rollercoaster is not a good way to die for me, because I hate rollercoasters. But it's still all the awesome. Here's the designer's description, from Projects - euthanasia-coaster - Julijonas Urbonas:
“Euthanasia Coaster” is a hypothetic euthanasia machine in the form of a roller coaster, engineered to humanely – with elegance and euphoria – take the life of a human being. Riding the coaster’s track, the rider is subjected to a series of intensive motion elements that induce various unique experiences: from euphoria to thrill, and from tunnel vision to loss of consciousness, and, eventually, death. Thanks to the marriage of the advanced cross-disciplinary research in mechanical engineering, space medicine, fairground psychology  and, of course, gravity, the fatal journey is made pleasant, elegant and ritualistic. Celebrating the limits of the human body but also the liberation from the horizontal life, this ‘kinetic sculpture’ is in fact the ultimate roller coaster: John Allen, former president of the famed Philadelphia Toboggan Company, once said that “the ultimate roller coaster is built when you send out twenty-four people and they all come back dead. This could be done, you know.”
Here's an animated 3d version:

Friday, May 16, 2014

rationalizing animal: on bias and memory

How Your Brain Justifies Torture | TIME.com: "a deep body of work showing that all people—very young children included—have a powerful bias toward remembering good things about in-group members and an equal tendency to remember bad things about out-groupers."

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Hypoxia, the best way to die?



I think the death penalty is wrong and, lest anyone worry, I would only consider suicide if I was in pain and a doctor said there was no hope I would get better. But I believe being able to end life mercifully goes hand-in-hand with being able to prolong it, so good ways to die fascinate me. Hypoxia (being deprived of oxygen) is now on the list.

Earlier: Apocarteresis, a natural way to die, and strangulation, a good, quick way.

Monday, May 12, 2014

Eleanor Marx on socialist feminism and bourgeois feminism

I've italicized my favorite parts of the following bits from Eleanor Marx: Working Women vs. Bourgeois Feminism:
As women we certainly have a lively concern about winning for women the same rights as men, including working men, already possess today. But we believe that this ‘women’s question’ is an essential component in the general question of the emancipation of labour.

There is no doubt that there is a women’s question. But for us – who gain the right to be counted among the working class either by birth or by working for the workers’ cause – this issue belongs to the general working-class movement. We can understand, sympathise, and also help if need be, when women of the upper or middle class fight for rights that are well-founded and whose achievement will benefit working-women also. I say, we can even help: has not the Communist Manifesto taught us that it is our duty to support any progressive movement that benefits the workers’ cause, even if this movement is not our own?

If every demand raised by these women were granted today, we working-women would still be just where we were before. Women-workers would still work infamously long hours, for infamously low wages, under infamously unhealthful conditions; they would still have only the choice between prostitution and starvation. It would be still more true than ever that, in the class struggle, the working-women would find the good women among their bitter enemies; they would have to fight these women just as bitterly as their working-class brothers must fight the capitalists. The men and women of the middle class need a ‘free’ field in order to exploit labour. Has not the star of the women’s rights movement, Mrs. Fawcett, declared herself expressly in opposition to any legal reduction of working hours for femaIe workers? It is interesting and worth mentioning that, on this question, the orthodox women’s-rightser and my good friend Mr. Base, the weak epigone of Schopenhauer’s, both take absolutely the same position. For this women’s-rightser as for this misogynist, ‘woman’ is just woman. Neither of them sees that there is the exploiter woman of the middle class and the exploited woman of the working class. For us, however, the difference does exist. We see no more in common between a Mrs. Fawcett and a laundress than we see between Rothschild and one of his employees. In short, for us there is only the working-class movement.
And:
For us there is no more a ‘women’s question’ from the bourgeois standpoint than there is a men’s question. Where the bourgeois women demand rights that are of help to us too, we will fight together with them, just as the men of our class did not reject the right to vote because it came from the bourgeois class. We too will not reject any benefit, gained by the bourgeois women in their own interests, which they provide us willingly or unwillingly. We accept these benefits as weapons, weapons that enable us to fight better on the side of our working-class brothers. We are not women arrayed in struggle against men but workers who are in struggle against the exploiters.

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Strange logic about race and cognition at New Scientist—and by Vox Day

How your ancestors' farms shaped your thinking - life - 08 May 2014 - New Scientist: "students from all-wheat areas were 56 per cent more likely to think analytically than students from all-rice areas. For example, when asked to match the two closest of sheep, dog and grass, they grouped sheep and dog, which appear most similar. Students from rice-growing areas grouped sheep and grass, as these have the closest relationship to each other in real life, and to them this relationship mattered more than physical resemblance."

Vox Day shared that to support his belief that "culture is genetic". But if a single test with variables that aren't mentioned in the article is significant, the students from the rice-growing areas are the ones who think more analytically. A slightly higher percentage of students from the wheat-growing areas made the superficial connection of sheep and dog based on their appearance, while a few more students from the rice-growing area saw the deeper relationship: A sheep is not a dog, but sheep eat grass and dogs do not.

Ah, well. Some people are just desperate for a reason to feel superior, no matter how silly the example. Confirmation bias can make fools of us all, and the stronger our belief, the more likely we are to accept the flimsiest support for it.

ETA: New book on race by Nicholas Wade: Professor Ceiling Cat says paws down « Why Evolution Is True

Friday, May 9, 2014

Marx believed in the free press

Brendan O'Neill has a short answer to people who think socialists in general and Marxists in particular want to censor: Marx hated press freedom? Er, I don't think so. He was its most passionate champion. As a young man, Marx said:
The free press is the ubiquitous vigilant eye of a people's soul, the embodiment of a people's faith in itself, the eloquent link that connects the individual with the state and the world, the embodied culture that transforms material struggles into intellectual struggles and idealises their crude material form. It is a people's frank confession to itself, and the redeeming power of confession is well known. It is the spiritual mirror in which a people can see itself, and self-examination is the first condition of wisdom. It is the spirit of the state, which can be delivered into every cottage, cheaper than coal gas. It is all-sided, ubiquitous, omniscient. It is the ideal world which always wells up out of the real world and flows back into it with ever greater spiritual riches and renews its soul.
I linked to the article at reddit, where a commenter suggested censorship was necessary sometimes and cited a demand from Section II of The Communist Manifesto as evidence that Marx had changed his mind on the free press: "Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State." I pointed out:
And how do you interpret that as restricting the press? To me, that means there will finally be the equivalent of a free press for everyone, because under capitalism, as A. J. Liebling noted, "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one." Do you think centralizing transport means denying people the freedom to travel?
And:
Ignore the morality of silencing for a moment and just think about the tactics: when you censor the press, you alienate libertarian socialists, and you make anti-socialists fight you harder because they now have the evidence that your goal is to oppress people in the name of socialism.
And:
The moment you have the power to censor capitalists, they're no longer a major threat. And unfortunately, censorship bureaucracies can live forever. 
Two more nice things about letting your opponents speak: you know what they're saying because they're not forced to create secret networks, and you can counter their arguments for everyone to see.

Thursday, May 8, 2014

No one "deserves" mockery or ridicule—though bullies and thugs always say their victims deserve what they get

At This Needs to Be Said » Balloon Juice, I gave one of my stock replies to someone who claimed Freddie deBoer got “the ridicule he deserves”:
I’ll stick with Malcolm X’s advice: “Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.” If deBoer hasn’t put a hand on you, he doesn’t deserve ridicule. Though I realize there are people who think ridicule is the reason for the web.
I just googled "deserves mockery" and "deserves ridicule". Both give over a million hits. Some people love the idea that their targets deserve to be abused, but when I think of who deserves ridicule, I remember this bit from Shakespeare:
POLONIUS
My lord, I will use them according to their desert.

HAMLET
God’s bodykins, man, much better. Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping? Use them after your own honor and dignity. The less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.
 A few more quotes:

"Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities." —Oscar Wilde

"I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence." —Frederick Douglass

"When you're mean and when you ridicule people it's a sign of your own insecurities." —Nicki Minaj

"Ridicule is the first and last argument of a fool." —Charles Simmons

"Mockery is a rust that corrodes all it touches." —Milan Kundera

Related: Respect everyone

Thursday, May 1, 2014

today's civility thought

If you can't make your point politely, you haven't thought about it enough.

A little about women writers who used men's names or initials

In the comments at Blindingly White: BookCon, John Green, and Knowing When It's Time to Speak, McLicious said, "there is such a history of women having to use men's names to publish that is complicated and blah."

I responded,
"Having to use"? It was suggested to Rowling and she decided to go with the advice, but women have been successfully publishing under female names at least since Sappho. Mary Shelley? Jane Austen? Maybe I'm biased because in my genre, there's Leigh Brackett, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Ursula K LeGuin, Octavia Butler, etc.
She countered,
Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell? You might know them as the Brontes. George Eliot? J.D. Robb? A.M. Barnard? Isak Dinesen? George Sand?
And I replied,
I always wondered when the Brontes were outed, because I never encountered them as the Bells. So I just googled it: it was in July, 1848, and it was their choice. Somehow, they managed to succeed under female names, just as Jane Austen and Elizabeth Gaskell had before them. I haven't found much about this, but it would appear their books have been published under their own names since 1850. 
George Eliot's first publication was in 1856—after the Brontes were known as the Brontes. Of course, Eliot had a right to pass as a man in the belief it would be better for her literary career, and we can't know whether she was right to think she should use a man's name. In any case, she outed herself in 1859, when her first novel came out, and she doesn't seem to have suffered from having done that. 
What's tricky about the women who wrote using initials is men have done the same. C. S. Lewis, B. Traven, J. R. R. Tolkien, etc.
ETA: I seriously considered using my initials for my pen name because I was a pretentious git when I was young, and if you think I'm still one, I can't really argue with you.