(Part 3) Top products from r/SRSDiscussion

Maybe have a look at this: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/04/03/hip-hop-is-for-lovers/

Specifically:

>...LB: I find that as a hip hop fan who also keeps some mainstream feminist company, I find myself defending the very existence of the genre among other feminists. Uche, I know you’ve addressed this before in prior interviews more generally, but what do the HH4L ladies have to say to feminists who accuse hip hop at large of too much sexual bravado and objectification of women?

>Uche: When I first began discussing the concept of HH4L, I got mixed responses. People said everything from there is not enough music to support that to Hip Hop doesn’t talk about love and even expecting us to not deal with certain subjects or play certain songs. Sexual bravado and objectification of women happens in every culture. Hip Hop is not the only one. If you are not attuned to the culture of Hip Hop or anything remotely related to the experience of those that make or enjoy this varied and layered music, I would suggest you do some real investigation into it before labeling it as such. All hip hop music does not have sexual bravado and objectify women just like all feminists aren’t white man hating lesbians. Right?

>Lenée: I’m taking a deep breath as I type this, because I have so very much to say. First, Hip Hop culture and music are the result of a colonial history: the history of Black folks in the US. Hip Hop culture exists as a mirror of larger US culture and also as a filter of that culture. As an agent of the culture, the music speaks to an array of experiences and perspectives. Yes, the primary media makers in the culture are heterosexual cisgender men of color (mostly black-identified). Yes, there is sexual bravado, and yes there’s objectification of women. I think that the tendency of people I identify as outsiders — usually academics, often white people, and way too often white cisgender women who ID as feminists — is to be outraged first and ask questions later.

>LB: (Also, dear readers, there is about ten-plus years of womanist and feminist scholarship by women of color on hip hop, on women in hip hop, and hip hop feminism, so please google-fu if this is news.)

>Lenée: If a straight man makes a song about someone he’s attracted to, we know it sure as shit isn’t gonna be a song about one of his homeboys. So, objectification of women is gonna happen. It cannot be avoided. The extent to which it goes is my concern. As far as the sexual bravado goes, I’d like to direct any and everyone with this critique to study stereotypes about black men — namely the construct of the big black buck. Sometimes rappers reinforce the constructs, sometimes they build their own identities in the shadow of those constructs… And other times, nobody’s paying attention to what doesn’t fit what they’re looking for. Just so they can be outraged first and ask questions later. Also: Lady (“Yankin’”) is just as full of braggadocio as any song by a man that we’ve played on the show, if not more. I’m certain that different ideas apply because she’s a woman and the decency police feel differently about her. But that’s probably a blog post in and of itself.

>LB: No kidding. I was googling Lady out of curiosity and saw that she gets a lot of blowback about that song. (I can’t even begin to dissect the video.) Sure it’s sexually explicit, but it’s not meant to be a deep song. What it is is an affirmative, body-positive song about getting laid. The narrator has agency, she’s enjoying herself, it’s consensual. There’s a place for that and it’s a worthwhile narrative, so I think the real problem — and there is considerable scholarship on the “acceptable” roles for women in hip hop — is when the only available slots for women in the mainstream are the super-sexy Trinas or the crunchier Lauryn Hills.

>Uche: The song “Yankin’” and those like it have its place in Hip Hop. The whole social construct that it’s taboo for women to speak on their sexual prowess is really outdated (to me anyway).

>Lenée: I agree. It’s really simple to me: dudes rap about the presence of alcohol and/ or drugs in sexual encounters. They talk about being great in bed, good in bed, the king of cunnilingus or whatever. A lot. T.I. (he calls himself the pussy pumper!), for instance, talks about handing out bottles of Grey Goose and ecstasy pills as he has multiple partner sex. In more than one song. I’ve heard the most harsh criticism about Lady from “real Hip Hop heads,” people who actively and vocally ask for the return of Leaders of the New School, DAS Efx, and LL Cool J’s first nose. I think Lady’s song is epic. It’s fun. It’s got a good beat. And at the end of the day she’s not hurting anyone. Lots of folks seem to have gone out of their way in online spaces to decry “Yankin’” and act like it’s The Sole Reason Black People Can’t Have Nice Things. As if it isn’t R. Kelly. (Jokes.)...

Lauren Bruce interview with Uche and Lenée, hosts of Hip Hop is For Lovers (a multimedia web experience dedicated to looking at love, sex and intimacy through the lens of hip hop culture. Its centerpiece is a weekly woman-centered, queer-friendly and justice-heavy podcast that features discussions about a variety of relationship topics punctuated with the best in rap.)

>I didn't say they wouldn't have to work hard or take advantage of other opportunities (Kahn academy, online tutoring, supplementary materials), but you implying that they can't under any circumstances achieve an education?

This sounds dangerously like bootstrap nonsense. Yeah, sure, an inner city kid can get a good education by going to their run-down public library and watching 4 hours of Kahn academy videos a day. Without any academic support system. Without a reinforcing social environment. Without a stress-free suburban lifestyle. (You'd be surprised how easy it is to study when you don't have to worry where your next meal is coming from.)

I'm a college student. My family is pretty well off. I consider myself ridiculously privileged compared to a less well-off peer:

• I don't have to spend 20 hours a week working, so I have more time to study, and i'm not tired or stressed out when I do.
  
• I don't have to stress out about loans, or spend hours doing paperwork and arguing with student loan companies
  
• I can afford brand new laptops, the newest editions of the textbooks, plus any supplementary material I choose, without worrying about it.
  
• I can afford the best tutors, prep classes, prep books, etc
  
• I can freely take summer classes (where no financial aid is available), giving me a leg-up for the next year.
  
• I have a car, which allows me to do many simple tasks (grocieries, doctor's appointments, etc.) much faster than if I had to bike or take public transport. Again, more time to study or relax.
  
  Far from an exhaustive list. And that's just the privilege of being upper middle compared to regular middle class. Think about what you're saying.

Most literature I'm familiar with on global poverty shows that it is decreasing in relative and (over the last 30 years) absolute terms. If you have issues with income based methods, I'd suggest looking at the global literacy and infant mortality rates. As countries replicate the inclusive insititions (and hence, economic successes) of countries like South Korea this is likely to continue.

Regarding the reliability of Soviet statistics the easiest example is the 1937 census. This was the first census since 1926, and therefore the first that would follow the mass famines and purges of the early 1930s. When they accurately showed the population much lower than suited Stalin the statisticians were shot/gulaged. The 1939 census-makers got it right, and just reported that the predictions had been met exactly.

But referring to the Brezhnev years (1964-1982), or what Gorbachev called the "Era of Stagnation", there's a text called Brezhnev Reconsidered which is fantastic. (I'm afraid I'm having trouble finding more than the first chapter online, but there's always the Era of Stagnation wiki page.) That covers the economic difficulties of the period you've outlined as 'high-growth'.

By pointing out that their technological advances were constrained within certain sectors, I'm saying that the Bolsheviks built a state that was centralized enough to throw people at certain areas like Ancient Egypt did the pyramids. The most enduring innovation of the Soviet Union is the AK-47, designed, ironically by someone who'd rather have designed lawnmowers. Innovation happened not because of self-motivation, but because of central planning.

The relative power of the state vs its constituents is rather beside the point. The ability to vote, to choose your employer, to not be sold, to hold property even if you were black, or a woman, or a prisoner, are all liberties that weren't allowed back around 1850. Countries have implemented strong safety nets and universal access to healthcare and education.

I'm not familiar with that author, but this book by Bellah is a good one:
http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Human-Evolution-Paleolithic-Axial/dp/0674061438/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_3

Also The Robert Bellah Reader. As a 'romantic' scholar of religion who is also an atheist I really like his work.

Happy reading!

Edit, paragraphs. :)

What else are they interested in? Maybe you could send them a coffee table art book featuring concept pictures from their favorite video game?

You could also go with more of a troll gift, or not send anything at all, but I'm sure there is more to the person than just being a reddit stereotype. Like your comment history probably doesn't tell the full story of you, right? They could be a perfectly nice person offline - you never really know.

Sure. I would argue that those stereotypes of sexual prowess and masculinity are very clear examples of how these standards can hurt men. I don't believe there is such a thing as 'perfect privilege' either. There is only more or less in relation to others.

Just like female beauty standards can keep all women, regardless of appearance, from experiencing their true potential in different ways, standards of masculinity inhibit men the same way.

Men are often robbed of emotional support by these unreasonable standards of masculinity. Just like women, men often feel deep, deep shame for not measuring up to these standards. Conversely, the men who do live up to these standards often live in fear of losing that status. This manifests as the stereotypical jock beating up the weak kid. It's the male analog to the thin girl who is constantly afraid of becoming fat.

Personally I think that's why so many male Redditors feel so angered by being called out for dog-piling inappropriate jokes and catcalling women in Reddit threads. They are essentially screaming "Don't you see? This is the only emotional outlet I have!" And they feel that to be true in a profound way.

I don't say that to make excuses for the behavior, but I can see it as an explantation for why so many otherwise decent guys do this.

Have you ever heard of RW Connell's theory of Multiple Masculinities? Like I said above, I'm not an expert, and I've only begun my reading on the subject, but her concept of varying types of masculine ideals makes a lot of sense to me.

here is her book

a jstor article

this looks like a good basic introduction

I know I'm posting two links to the same author in this thread, but I promise they are both worth reading: Protecting the Gift: Keeping Children and Teenagers Safe (and Parents Sane)

To add to this list: Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Its the best overview of colonialism, anti-colonial theory and practice, and postcolonialism that I've ever read, and might very well be one of the best books I've ever read in general even.

The book "Dude, You're a Fag" by CJ Pascoe is an in-depth ethnography of how high school boys conceptualize masculinity, with added emphasis on the use of fag as a slur. I would really recommend it if you're interested in the topic - chapter is available free by PDF here.
She also researches youth and digitial media for those into that sort of thing.

More Pascoe goodness:

• 
  Interesting interview with Pascoe on Feministing
  
• 
  Pascoe's faculty page with more information
  
  
  (Edited to add links)

"Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes" by Irving Janis.

A great read through. It's a nice mix of theoretical approaches and case studies of times when a room full of otherwise really smart people came to really bad decisions.

Edit* That Amazon price looks like a silly glitch due to a bad algorithm. Used copies normally run about $10.

The book Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine is absolutely brilliant.

Your analysis reminds me of a book I taught earlier this year. It's entitled, Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin. He was a white man from Texas who underwent cosmetic procedures to darken the pigment of his skin. He then lived as a black man in the South during the 1950's for several months in order to give a "true" account of what it's like to live with racism.

The inherent problem with the project, while it did result in a fascinating book, lies in the original premise; it isn't a book about being black in the South, it's a book about a white man pretending to be black in the South during 1950's.

Hi carbuyer throwaway, a lot of people have mentioned that it's hard to get racist people to stop being racist. I agree. However, you might want to read a book called Whistling Vivaldi - It is a book about racial stereotyping in the Unites States and small steps you can take to overcome them. Truly enlightening book. Also, I'm so sorry about your experiences - from one American to another. It's important to remind yourself that you are not defined by what other people say and do to you. Much support.

I am not good at articulating myself, so I will suggest a book for you. Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy. It is not just about abortion, but motherhood from a sociological perspective. It's the book that really helped me nail down my feelings about abortion, because although I am not religious, I love babies and once felt the same way that you did.

Well it's nothing particularly surprising for the most part.

The first cause is simply population death. If the people who speak the language are literally dying out then the language will obviously go with it. (Thankfully) this is rather uncommon. This could include other forms of cultural death, such as population mixing, etc.

Another one is forcing, or at least pressuring, a culture into not using their language. For example, when children are not allowed to use their language at school or even through more insidious means. This doesn't happen in the overt form it used to, but still happens in more subtle forms today. This can be buoyed on by uninformed pressure caused by shoddy journalism.

This neatly leads into my next point, cultural pressure. Language death often occurs due to the shrinking of domains a language is used in until the speakers stop having occasion to speak it. This starts with a new language being introduced as the language of beaurocracy and education. Then maybe religion, etc. until parents cease to see the point of speaking it in front of their children, or simply haven't a cause to do so.

This societal pressure can manifest in other ways, like claiming that bilingualism leads to poorer language acquisition (it doesn't, actually the opposite is true), or just generally making a culture feel like their language isn't valuable, because it's inferior in some way. All it takes is for one generation not to teach their language to their children, for the language to disappear.

I think there are some I'm probably missing, but these would be the main ones. If you're interested in this stuff, I recommend checking out Dying Words by Nick Evans, he is awesome.

I have always kind of went back and forth with the same thing. I recently moved from a larger city to a small southern Illinois town and it's insane the amount of racism that stems from a very large, uneducated and poor population. I feel bad that it comes from a long lineage of just being ignorant and passing it along to family but that's also not really an excuse. I've known plenty of people who come from a racist background and even people who grew up very poor and they made the conscious decision to be different and compassionate towards all people.


You should read "Hillbilly Elegy" (link here ) the author grew up in what most call "white trash" household - poor, uneducated, drug use etc. he made the decision to change his future and end up differently and he went to Yale and became a lawyer ( and also a liberal) The book is good too because it goes into depth into that demographic of poor, uneducated and racists, how it all started and how it keeps continuing (and probably will continue forever, unfortunately).

"With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

• Steven Weinberg
  
  Imagine for a moment that you are a devout Muslim extremist. Imagine that you genuinely, honestly, and absolutely believe that Allah and his prophet Mohammed have commanded that you destroy the unbelievers, for they are the enemies of God, destined to fuel the flames of Hell for all eternity. Imagine that you have no doubt in life after death, that Paradise is a real place and that martyrdom is the surest way to get there. It should not be hard to see that a person who honestly believes all this could, in fact, very easily, bring themselves to kill and die in the name of Islam, rather in the name of Muslims.
  
  Consider, for example, the reaction of the majority of Muslims to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. At the time, Saddam had the dubious honour of having killed more Muslims than any other person alive, likely more than anyone in centuries. Yet the Muslim voice was not raised against Saddam, but rather against the Americans (this being before their complete mishandling of the situation). After all, the Americans were the enemies of God. These are not the actions of people standing in defence of Muslims, these are the actions of people standing in defence of Islam. We do not even need to make such inferences, for we have the words of the extremists themselves. Perhaps we should listen to the words of failed suicide bomber Zaydan Zaydan, who put it quite bluntly when he confessed "I didn't want revenge for anything. I just wanted to be a martyr.'' Or perhaps we should consult the instructions given to the 9/11 attackers, which make no mention of any American crimes other than not being Muslim, and urging the terrorists to "Remember that this is a battle for the sake of God." because "As the prophet, peace be upon him, said, 'An action for the sake of God is better than all of what is in this world'", and to ensure that their final words are not a message to America for their crimes, but simply Allahu Ackbar, "God is great" (an instruction which the black box of Flight 93 can attest to being followed). If we follow this chain all the way up from the lowly suicide bombers to the top, we reach our logical conclusion with Osama bin Laden's Letter to America. This is a rare document because it actually does mention some secular crimes of America. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of the criticisms it contains at the very least couched in religious terms, if not being a downright condemnation of the infidels. The letter is fraught with Qur'anic references, and makes it foremost demand a simple commandment that "The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam."
  
  It is no coincidence that, throughout history, suicide bombings against the innocent have been the exclusive domain of the insane and the religious. The singular exception here are the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (or "Tamil Tigers") who, whilst having no explicit religious demands, were an exclusively Hindu group, whose faith played an integral role in the trivialisation of death required of a martyr. Suicide attacks against civilians (that's the key word here) have no secular motivation. The wholesale murder of innocents is not a "powerful symbol", it doesn't "level the playing field" and while it certainly mobilises the apathetic, it does not do so in a way that is beneficial to the attacker. The slaughter of civilians accomplishes zero political or marketing goals for religious terrorists, yet they persist at the action. Why? Because to the religious extremist, there is no such being as an innocent unbeliever.
  
  To continue on this note, I would recommend The Crisis of Islam by Bernard Lewis, who shows the link between terrorism and religion better than I could possibly hope to here. Nevertheless, I'll assume that you don't have a copy on hand, so I'll relate a few key points here. I've already made the point regarding Saddam, but now I'll go a bit further. Lewis makes the contentious observation that "In all of recent history, no country on earth has fought so hard and so consistently as the United States on behalf of Muslim populations". Whilst this may seem a stretch at first, let's look at the evidence. I've already mentioned the 2003 Iraq War, but what about the first Gulf War, when the US went to war to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? Or the No-Fly Zone, twelve years of air defense for the sole purpose of stopping Saddam from bombing the Kurd and Shia minorities? Even in Kosovë, the war that most people forget about, the United States went to war to defend the largely Muslim Albanians and from Milosevic's Christian Orthodox militia. Whilst not overtly waging war for obvious reasons, the US also took great risks supporting the mujahideen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Lewis also makes detailed comparisons between middle eastern nations that have been occupied by the west (e.g. Egypt) and those that have not (e.g. Saudi Arabia), and shows that, on the whole, the former colonies are undoubtedly better off. Even when such intervention has failed (e.g. Iran), the middle eastern states have not been anywhere near as damaged by US foreign policy than many other parts of the world (take Central America as a prime, but not solitary, example). The simple fact is, apart from their lack of adherence to Islam (the "humiliation" of being aided by God' enemies is a large source of the hatred of the West), the middle east has surprisingly few grievances against the United States, and certainly had none against the men and women arriving at work at the World Trade Center on the 11th of September, a little over ten years ago.
  
  Now, I do not deny that many Muslims take legitimate offence with the United States and it's foreign policy. However, as I've already noticed, this offence is expressed in an almost exclusively religious manner. While the hatred may be secular, the violence is most certainly justified by religion, in large part because of the trivialisation of death it offers. On this note, I can offer no words better than those of (devout Catholic) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Sclalia, who uses Christianity to justify the death penalty, telling us that "for the believing Christian, death is no big deal...For the unbeliever, on the other hand, to deprive a man of his life is to end his existence. What a horrible act!" Thsi is to say nothing of the role that religion plays in commanding, rather than merely justifying these atrocities. Terrorist leaders do not command their followers with the Qur'an because of the poetry of the writing, they do it because they know their followers will kill in the name of Allah. Or, as Sam Harris candidly puts it, "A lever only works when it is attached to something". To illustrate this simply, one needs only to look at the horrific violence that erupts between groups who have no non-religious issues with each other, such as the [TRIGGER WARNING] frequent and horrific outbreaks of violence between Hindus and Muslims in parts of India. On this topic, the depravity of religious hatred is illustrated best by Nathuram Godse, the quiet Hindu man, untouched by the Hindu-Muslim violence, who murdered Mohandas Gandhi in broad daylight, because he considered Gandhi's efforts to resolve the conflict as ''constant and consistent pandering to the Muslims.''
  
  That covers terrorism. The rest I'll break up and do separately, due to reddit's character limit.