Book review: Make No Apologies: Early Feminist Writings

Make No Apologies: Early Feminist Writings

Edited by Amanda L. Webster

I agree, 'much of what was written by feminists one hundred years or more in the past still resonates today', and the patriarchy is alive and well. The book proposes a few reasons for it, saying, 'it was the positions of privilege that many of these feminists enjoyed that allowed their voices to be heard while those of their so-called inferiors have been largely silenced'. And it seems, 'at least some of these writings belong to “foot soldiers of patriarchy”'.

The very first essay, Declaration of Sentiments by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, lists the 'repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman', turning her into 'an irresponsible being'. Now she can commit many crimes with impunity, 'provided they be done in the presence of her husband'. Another essay, The Industrial Position of Women by Emily Blackwell, M.D., argues for 'women to be allowed equal access to work', which is just as valid today as it was one hundred and thirty-plus years ago. Interestingly, 'In the savage state, women built the wigwam, raised the corn, prepared the clothes, carried on in its rudest and most elementary form all the work which is today the object of modern industry' and mostly done by males. Thus, when the simple forms of labor developed into architecture and agriculture and manufacture, it is held that women do not fit easily to these old occupations. 

In 'Uncivil Liberty: An Essay to Show the Injustice and Impolicy of Ruling Woman Against Her Consent', Ezra Hervey Heywood traces the origins of the concept of social and legal inferiority of women. The legal subjection of woman is thought to be justified by an assumed natural dependence on man. Here, 'the old claim of tyranny, that “the king can do no wrong,” takes a new turn, the essay posits. Still another essay discusses 'the whole power of voluntary maternity' and free sexual selection by women. 'It should be for them to choose whether they will have children or not: and if so, how many, at what intervals, and with whom.'

Voltairine de Cleyre likens marriage to slavery rather than to prostitution. Charlotte Perkins Gilman, in 'The Yellow Wall Paper' exhorts all fathers to enjoy equal rights both on the responsibilities and the joys of parenthood. Floyd Dell, in her essay 'Femism for Men', suggests that, though Feminism is going to make it possible for the first time for men to be free, they object to it, since they yearn for the feel of power more than they want the sense of freedom. Ethel Puffer Howes describes, how women could be both mothers and career women at the same time by removing the artificial sex restriction invoked to explain the inhibitions of achievement. And, Freedom or Death by Emmeline Pankhurst underscores the fact that men have done splendid things, can speak of great achievements in engineering; but they have failed, they have miserably failed, when it has come to dealing with the lives of human beings. And the race must be saved, and it can only be saved through the emancipation of women.

The ideas expressed here are all the more valid now, when society is struggling to invent reasons to re-impose the sexual restrictions of the earlier days.

Governance by Default, till Democratically Removed

Computer is a success. Every moment, it is making our society a better place to live. How? What can we learn from it?

One can cite many reasons. Computers follow completely, a programmed path, and, it does not get swayed, for example, by passion, are only a few. I think, the single most important reason is  nothing else but the fact that everywhere, there is a 'default'. Which, even when is of no good, ensures that things do not go from bad to worse.  Such steps or instructions keep the issue under its care in a state that is never irredeemable, whatever be the calamity brought by external or internal causes.

By these standards, human is not at all a success. We always find something undesirable in every human society and its constituents. As long as we succeed in keeping such elements away from the ideals that happens to be in vogue currently, we continue to pat ourselves on the back, overlooking all the ills. Otherwise, we change our ideals such that there is no confrontation between those very elements and the current ideals, while blaming the elements themselves for all the ills. However, as one can imagine in such a scenario, things are always on a journey from bad to worse. We just refuse to acknowledge it, and ignore the ever-present threat of those very elements reappearing. Rather, we make such threats or failures a distinct element of the human, all the while feeling proud of the fact that those things are not there in other forms of life. Instinct rules the animal kingdom, and hence it remains calm. Reason rules the human, and they may not be calm, since each one will have a reason of his own. 

In fact for all these years, the journey of the human race has been a silent acknowledgment of this. Think of the age of exploration, the age of discovery, the period thereafter, or the present time, what else but success we have been striving for?

We are yet to realize it. When one goes behind the secrets of plant life, or survey the animal world, or something else, rather than the outcome, it is the fruitful culmination of the efforts that makes one contented the most. The fact that the efforts led to a success is far more significant than what the success did or is capable of doing. An intelligent life, we are, but why miss such an obvious inference as this?

In the  light of the above, let us examine an important facet of human society, namely, governance, and see where we stand. After experimenting with monarchy, as well as checking into a few others like communism, almost all human societies have taken to democracy for good.

Here, essentially the people have to do three things. One, to choose the ones who will govern. Two, to put up with the choice, in a prescribed manner, and that too giving all possible allocation to vagaries of human behavior, for a given period. And three, to assess the governance and to choose again, whether to continue with the same, or to go for fresh ones.

Something does not make sense. People are required to do a lot of work to get themselves governed. Much of their effort is spent in receiving instructions and directions for living ones life. And they hardly get time to live that life, (and are quite happy about it!).

I therefore think, we need to restructure our governance. An easy path is, just as we have seen above in  the case of computer programs, by introducing a default government. Where, the only thing the citizens will have to do is to monitor the performance of the default. Instances of lack of success should be calling for a change, when the relevant part of the government is corrected or replaced in a prescribed manner.  Needless to say, in such a scenario, the government shall be meeting all expectations of all the people.

In short:

1) The country chooses a default government. A good way is to conduct an open competitive examination.

2) Citizens keep recording their dissatisfaction, if and when it happens.

3) Whenever the recorded value crosses a threshold, the government, or the part that can be identified as the culprit, is told to go home.

In One Sentence:

A  citizen, rather than electing, decides whether to let the ones at the helm of the government to continue or not.

The result:

We shall have a proactive government, and a citizenry that is always free to pursue its call.

 

 

Book Review: THE NECESSITY OF ATHEISM

 Book Review: THE NECESSITY OF ATHEISM By DR. D. M. BROOKS. The book begins with an interesting quote from "Thus Spake Zarathrustra" of Friedrich Nietzsche. "..old Gods came to an end long ago. And verily it was a good and joyful end of Gods! They did not die ..but laughed themselves to death!" The last one to die perhaps announced, "There is but one God! Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." 

The first chapter is about THE EVOLUTION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, which says, "when man began to persuade the idols or spirits to do things for his benefit that religion began". As man progressed, his self-made religious conceptions too advanced, reaching finally, "the modern religionist who believes that the worship of a deity in our own age is far removed from the worship of an idol by our savage ancestors, and retraces his steps and calls itself a civilized mind. With whom, we all identify ourselves, worshiping his deity."

A good discussion on "THE KORAN, THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS, THE PROPHETS MOHAMMED, JESUS, AND MOSES and other fundamentals of later religions, then follow. It is quite critical in both nature and content; the examination is through the eyes of a Martian. Further chapters examine other effects of religion, like the conception of physical disease as the result of the wrath of God, or the malice of Satan, or by a combination of both.

Another chapter examines the relation of astronomy and religion. In the very early days, the book observes, "..heavenly bodies were looked upon by the theologians as either living beings possessing souls, or as the habitation of the angels. However, as time passed, the geocentric doctrine, the doctrine that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun and planets revolve about it, was the theory that held the highest respect." And many centuries had to pass, before astronomy could flower as a worthy discipline. 

Witchcraft, slavery, and exploitation of labour are some of the entities that flourished with the help from religion, further discussions show.

The author I think is absolutely right, when he says, "..theology is based on science", and "we have a Theology of Gaps". That is, "wherever there are gaps in scientific knowledge", theologians insert a fitting idea, and calls it God. We are in fact living with agonies that are caused, whenever such ideas become a misfit. Rather, we can try atheism to act as a filling agent. 

Are we terrestrial?

 Well, human society always is, unlike that of all the other forms of life, a bunch of contradictions. We consider or take pride in all those as unique features of our race, venerating or celebrating it at every chance. But, by doing so, we are losing a valuable opportunity - one to learn more about ourselves. In fact, rather than examining critically and analysing it, as we do for all other matters in relation to the living and the non-living, we are dumping a clear paradox like this, for no worthy reason. And we do not realize it, being blinded by the pomp and the glory we accord to human race.

Why are there such contradictions within the same race? Is each human made up of a different life altogether, unlike the rest of life? The reason for such a disparity between human and all the other species of life could be attributed to the origins of each, I think. Perhaps, rather than a cultured monkey, our forefather is a descendant of something extraterrestrial.

One such possibility is, we could be having our origins in a comet like object.

Say, a life like constituent of such an object got dropped here during one of its visits, and it successfully endured the earth. Further adaptation occurred over many centuries, during which, it acquired the shape, size and other traits necessary to survive and flourish in this planet, progressively losing some or all of the original characteristics or features. Also, the possibility of intermingling between at least one of the many forms of life here, and the visitors, cannot be ruled out. Either, by the time the comet made another visit, they or descendants were not able to recognize each other, or, another visit is yet to take place. In fact all the observations and deductions of human evolution fits here perfectly well. Which can also explain easily, the existence of intermediate forms for the human, like Neanderthal, and the absence of any such, for all the other forms of life.

This could be fitting quite well with findings and discoveries of anthropology. Think of human nature, to start with. They begin their life as terribly weak ones, unable even to stand erect for some time, unless supported. Thereafter, one grows up to become capable of doing all that, but in a rather error-prone manner, unlike all the other occupants of this planet. They need to spend much of their life, just to learn, how to live. And then there is a need to practice, what one learns. Now, can’t we imagine of a different planet, whose ‘g’ shall not prevent the new-born ones from standing erect? Followed by a not so long period of growth, which shall not be calling for every sort of attention? One that has a different ambience, where our nature will be error free, like that all the other species of life?

Or, think of our actions. On the whole, the most admired ones are those that lead to destruction, of the current social order, or the way we progress our life. Think of a few great names chosen at random and one can easily confirm it as a fact. Like, Hannibal, Napoleon, Karl Marx, Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Jesus Christ, Buddha, or Muhammed Nabi.

Think of resources. Those available in this planet are constantly depleting, posing a threat to the seamless continuation of human species. Either our pattern of utilization, that is our life itself, is wrong, or we belong to a different part of this universe where human specific needs are never in short supply.

Think of human child. Unlike the new ones of all other species of life, why should there be a need to learn everything afresh, like learning to walk? Or, why should it be told what not to eat?

Think of human lifestyle. One that is totally unsuitable for rest of the life, and the planet, little reflection can show. And also, constantly adding difficulties to the race itself?

Think of human intellect. One that is always coming up with fresh ideas. Mostly with the potential to cause some harm to humans themselves, if not to destroy the race completely. But, on a few occasions, such ideas could result in something good too. And, by extolling beyond all proportions, the latter, the former, though abundant, gets overlooked easily.

What do all these indicate? Humans do not belong to this planet? I feel so. The forefathers of humans would have been the constituents of a different planet, or a comet as mentioned before. And some of them happened to reach earth, which might even have been uninhabited.

Say, some of them would have survived the new environment. They would have been spending their days in total discomfort, trying meet the necessities of life with whatever limited was their adaptability to the planet. The initial generations faced severe issues related to food, shelter, coverings and all, setting in motion, evolution. And successive generations adapted well, putting a brake to it.

So, our roots could be elsewhere. Where, the prevailing environmental parameters would have been a suiting one, whether for humans, or for the real stock of that species, to live in total comfort, all through one’s lifetime. And as a result, all their intellectual transactions get absorbed in a seamless manner. We are yet to locate their descendants, or they haven’t been able to meet their ones of this planet, or each of them is unable to recognize the other one.

Book Review: THE DEMOCRATIC QUALITY VECTOR

 THE DEMOCRATIC QUALITY VECTOR AND THE NEW SOCIAL AGREEMENT by Jode Himann. The book is an appropriate commentary of the present day polity, which begins with a critic of the  democratic voting system. 

Democracy, the book notes, is heralded as one of the greatest achievements of modern civilization. But, with technology as the common denominator, many forces or nefarious agents and social media exploits are meddling in the affairs, both within as well as in other countries, putting democracy at risk. Countries act in preemptive belligerence, pushing the hard-earned democracy onto a slippery slope of authoritarianism.

Author's attempt is to examine such changes, and the many planes of its manifestation. The psychological plane is identified to be akin to the one explained by Daniel Kahneman with the help of theories X and Y. Noting that the sea of humanity is not entirely composed of experts, the necessity of embracing diversity is underlined, if better decisions are to be ensured. Telling social change comes with a cost, author reminds us of the unintended  negative consequences, every innovation keep bringing, and how that cannot be absent in the political sphere. Which points to the need of polishing, lubricating or overhauling democracy, while it is in use.

A solution to these difficulties is to create voting systems that promotes the fullest engagement of citizens in their own governance, author says. A system, Proxy voting, is suggested for this. To encourage participation, and to decrease voter apathy, what is proposed is to separate feeling marginalized and expressing those feelings. One may feel so, but one's  representative  can express it with greater vigour that can lead to better results. 

To implement this in practice, the urgent need is to tackle issues like fake news and growing volumes of data, author warns. Adopting the theories of Kahneman, we need to recognize the important value of intuition in decision-making, and the value of intangible knowledge to any organization. With the new symmetry-based 6 Dimensional mathematics, and new tools such as the Democratic Quality Vector (DQV), quantification of many intangibles make it possible to arrive at a metric of intuitive knowledge. All these can can significantly enhance voting efficiency and decision making in politics or in business.

Everything is clear to me except the tools mentioned in the above paragraph. How the many dimensional mathematics act? What all will influence the democratic quality vector? I however agree wholeheartedly with the author, democracy needs to undergo maintenance. Many suggestions for which, I myself have been proposing through my 'hubs'.

A question, heard often

Why isn't human society a peaceful one?

I agree, many are seized of this issue. But, all are looking at this, either totally from a material viewpoint, where we end up instituting various measures linked to the essentials of living, or fully from a spiritual angle, where we add to the imponderables of life. Naturally, each answer we get, adds to the existing commotion, and for quelling which, we turn to another essential, whether real or abstract. And the cycle goes on. 

As you can see, human life continues to grow in complexity.

I think we need to make a break, and address just Four Issues specific to humans.

One: an odd couple. Abstraction, which is a unique part of the human, while missing in all other forms of life, and the commotion that follows every instance of mating, which is missing in humans but present in all other forms of life. It seems, both are mutually exclusive. Is it then possible that abstraction evolved as a remedy for the post mating violence, which, given the fact that humans have a long mating season lasting all twelve months a year, would have been posing a serious problem to the early humans. Shouldn't we rein it?

Two: what we easily notice. Humans sport a certain element of unease, irrespective of one's condition or circumstances. In fact, much, or rather all of our philosophy, from sophism to existentialism, or communism, is nothing but an effort to appreciate and explain this unease, which causes our society to be always in a state of strife. Isn't it possible that this unease is a direct result of a mismatch between, what we learn and, what actually we do? As mentioned in many of my 'hubs', our current and historical styles of learning do not lead to a synchrony between what we learn, and where our natural interest or leaning lie. Whereas, it is so, for all other forms of life. Shouldn't we recast education?

Three: not an easy one at all. It is about our ideals, which the French revolution popularized. Namely, liberty, equality, and fraternity. All forms of life other than human, revel on liberty, and fraternity. Man seems to have discarded both, and chose to live as a society that thrives on demarcations based on the very same ones. At the same time, man is embracing with all his earnestness, equality, an unnatural ideal. As a result of which man is constantly ruffling feathers, both of mother nature, and of one's own nature. Shouldn't we reconsider our ideals?

Four: it escapes all attempts of an explanation. The more rational and clear we are, when dealing with material objects and the associated phenomena, the less bothered we are about any of those, when dealing with the objects of our imagination, entities like religion, customs, ceremonies, gods or demons. And the more eager, we are, to expose every secret, hidden in, say the earth, or the planets, the less inclined we are, to acknowledge the super natural powers or functions as rather obscure, let alone attempting to make it clear. Shouldn't we think further?

Peace, and answer to all the imponderables of life, is hiding here.

The End of The Rational

As I propose in my book, The Unsure Male, we are slowly heading into the age of the irrational. I was not at all comfortable with this thought, and perhaps nobody else too will be, since I could not show a reason, a force that can spark it. (My book tries to make it clear, how, once one takes a leaning, towards the irrational, or to the rational, certain aspects of life come to fore, encouraging one to go to the extremes of whatever is of interest currently.)

I examined this again, with the idea of finding a spark..

God - A Review

What is god? How did such an idea become part of human life? What does it actually do? What is its future?

Why Unrest?

In my hub ‘why is there unrest’, I said that beliefs make the human society a turbulent one. One way to confront this situation is to deem all such inputs as mental germs, accepting one, only if it is proved harmless. Another hub, ‘A-New-Approach-to-Mental-Health’, gave an account of it, and suggested a remedy. 

Still another remedy, a more permanent one, is also a fairly simple one. Be flexible, especially with the abstract tenets, every society is abundant with. 

What Use, the Past?

What can we do with the past. And, what are we doing with the past? When it comes to the inanimate, or it is about living beings other than humans, we are quite rational and thoughtful in learning from the past to make a better future. Whereas, when it comes to ourselves, we are not so. Isn't there room for a rethink?

Why Worry?

Should there be Worry?

There exists scope to re-examine all that is associated primarily with human life, the arguments presented in my blog entry ‘Is human a complex life?’, say. Let me have close look at worry, something widely accepted as universal, as far as the human race go.

What is worry? If something is associated with our lives, it should be serving a purpose. I therefore think, worry originated as a mental attempt, or a reminder to it, to confront, or avoid, a threat. For the early humans, it would have been a vital part of survival. For example, one worried about a danger in hiding would have been moving around better equipped and with greater care. And if, say a wild animal appeared, since the worry would have been keeping such one’s reflexes sharp, quite appropriate steps would have followed. (The people with such a genetic make up have a greater chance of survival, making worry more widespread, as generations go!)

Over time, worry would have got cemented as a part of human character, each generation celebrating it as a unique facet of the human. Though the original reason for institution of the same would have got lost on the way, as generations went by, worry continues to remain an integral part of the human, thanks to the persistent nature of things. (Which is understandable, for even in this age of language and writing, it is not very easy to get rid of crazy ideas from the past or prevent genuine ones from fading to oblivion)

Thus, as we continued to overcome the dangers, the earlier days posed, the propensity to worry kept on looking for new outlets. As a result, worry has become a part of human life, though no other form is affected by it. Even if we take certain peculiar expression seen among other species as those of anguish, there is no instance of such expressions causing disruption to any activity of life.

But my feeling is that we need not consider worry as a specific issue and prevent manifestations of its volatile nature. In which case, it will occur at diminishing intervals as the need for reflexive reactions dwindle, while human life progress towards the better.