Sunspots 168

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Humor:
The Onion reports that 98% of US commuters favor public transportation -- for other people.

Science:
Slate, on the supposed health benefits of Dannon's yogurt, and its imitators.

Slate, analyzing the differences between the way men and women think -- there are some, but there's not nearly as much as some people would have you believe.


Politics:
The Spanish parliament is expected to declare that animals have rights. William Saletan has some thoughts about that, in Slate.


Sports:
When their contracts are completed, National Basketball Association players become free agents. Charley Rosen, of Fox Sports, has a cynical view of some of the newly available players: " Anybody out there looking for a soft, athletic, outside shooter who can't guard a fire hydrant?"

Image source (public domain)

The most sexist verse in the Old Testament?

Here it is, after two verses to give it a little context:
Judges 5:28 “Out of the window she peered,
the mother of Sisera wailed through the lattice:
‘Why is his chariot so long in coming?
Why tarry the hoofbeats of his chariots?’
29 Her wisest princesses answer,
indeed, she answers herself,
30 ‘Have they not found and divided the spoil?—
A womb or two for every man;
spoil of dyed materials for Sisera,
spoil of dyed materials embroidered,
two pieces of dyed work embroidered for the neck as spoil?’ (ESV)

A womb or two for every man? Huh? So I checked the NIV, and the KJV. They don't use "womb." But a check of the original language, courtesy of the Blueletter Bible, indicates that there is a valid reason for the ESV translation.

So, this verse, part of a song celebrating God's help in delivering Israel, speaks of captive women as if they were wombs, not people. Wow!

I must remember the context. Judges 5 is a song of praise to God, attributed to Deborah and Barak, after they jointly led an attack against the army of Jabin of Hazor, which was led by Sisera. Part of what they are celebrating is the killing of Sisera by Jael, wife of one of the descendants of the father-in-law of Moses. So this is hardly the statement of an Old Testament male chauvinist -- it's being said by a woman, who led Israel (Judges 4:4), even in battle, and it includes celebration of a valiant act of war by a woman. It's possible that what Deborah and Barak were saying was that one of the reasons that Jabin's army was evil was the way they treated captive women. I don't know. I'm not sure that the Israelites didn't also treat them that way.

It is also doubtful that Deborah and Barak had any personal knowledge of what Sisera's mother, or her princesses, may have said. They may have made all that part up. However, these verses are part of the Bible, so must have some validity.

I noticed this passage as a consequence of following the ESV on-line Bible reading for a day in April.

Thanks for reading.

"What Have You Changed Your Mind About?" pt. 7

I continue comments on Edge's "World Question" issue, which question is the same as my title. See the first part of this series, which gives some explanation, the second part, the third, the fourth, the fifth, and the sixth.

This page of the issue has short essays by several important authors. They include an amazing piece by one Stanislas Deheane, who says that another scientist has proposed that human brain function can be described by a single powerful mathematical equation, if I understand correctly. There is plenty of room for skepticism about that idea! Brian Goodwin believes that the mechanical approach to biology has serious limitations. Nicholas Carr argues that the Internet can become a means for centralized control, rather than a means of enhancing independence. Helena Cronin says that the reason males dominate the Nobel Prizes, and other such awards, is not because males are more intelligent, but because that the intelligence of males is more widely distributed than that of females. Hmmm.

Thanks for reading.

Recent essay on pornography

The January issue of First Things includes a thought-provoking, no, disturbing essay on pornography.

I recommend that you read it. I wish that it wasn't important.

Thanks for reading.

The Left Hand of Darkness, by Ursula K. Le Guin

The Left Hand of Darkness (1969) is one of two novels by Ursula K. Le Guin to be honored with both the Nebula and Hugo awards. (The other is The Dispossessed.) The first link in this paragraph is to the Wikipedia article on the novel, which discusses some of its aspects. I shall muse about some, too.

The novel gained notoriety because it described a race or species of humans who had no permanent sexual orientation. For most of the time, they are neither male or female. For a few days of each cycle, their sexual organs develop, and they experience intense sexual desire. They may become either male or female, depending on environmental cues. This makes such sentences as "the king was pregnant" possible. It allowed Le Guin to explore the importance of sexual roles in our own society, and to speculate about this fictional one, which lacked them. It also, by implication, examined the way the English language deals with such roles. (In case any one is interested, the novel is not about heavy breathing and ripping off clothing.)

In spite of our interest in sexual roles, and of the excellence of Le Guin's imagination, I submit that the novel is really about a more fundamental issue, communication and understanding.

The Ekumen is a loose organization of civilizations on many planets. When Gethen, where the novel takes place, is discovered, it sends individuals to Gethen, to learn as much as they can about life on this planet. These people are unobtrusive, and their origin was not discovered by the Gethenians. Then, Genly Ai, a dark-skinned male from Earth, is sent publicly, as the first Envoy from the Ekumen. It is his job to obtain permission to bring down the other personnel of his mission from the Gethenians, who are in stasis near the planet, and to start them on the road to joining the Ekumen. To do this, he must communicate in two languages not his own, with cultures not his own, and to beings whose gender orientation is not his. The cultural difference includes shifgrethor, a social fabric which the Envoy doesn't understand fully. It is something like face saving. He stands out physically, because he taller and darker than most Gethenians, and is in permanent kemmer, or sexual readiness. Genly Ai must use all his skills to communicate with the Gethenians, to understand them, and for them to be able to reciprocate.

The Ekumen wants Gethen to join it primarily so that communication of ideas will be possible. Gethen is seventeen light years from the nearest member planet, so trade will not be practical.

Genly Ai communicates with a number of persons, including the King of Karhide, one of the nations of Gethen, with some of the political leaders of Orgeryn, a rival nation, with many ordinary folk, and especially with Estraven, who is prime minister of Karhide as the book begins. It develops that, of all the leaders, only Estraven has really understood his mission, and the implications of it.

Gethen, or Winter, is a cold planet. Le Guin has done a superb job of describing how this fact influences eating, dress, transportation, and architecture, and of describing the weather and the climate. The cold of Gethen makes several parts of the book possible, especially an epic journey across the ice by Estraven and Genly Ai. During this trek, they learn to communicate telepathically.

One aspect of communication is the ansible. Using this, the Envoy tries to convince King Argaven that he really is an ambassador from other worlds. Argaven asks Genly Ai to ask the Ekumen what makes a man a traitor (he considers Estraven one). The Ekumen attempts to answer, across interstellar space, but the answer is no better than he could have obtained on Gethen.

Finally, a little on the structure of the novel. Much of it is Genly Ai's journal, or recollections. Much of it is Estraven's journal, sometimes giving a different viewpoint of the same events. There are also other viewpoints.

The only way to really grasp this great novel is to read it. And, although it is easily readable, it should be read more than once.

I plan to post again on this book. Thanks for reading.

A subsequent post considers religion in this novel.

Two articles on -- gasp -- sex

Two articles about sex have appeared recently in Slate.

One of these is strictly biological, and little directly to do with humans. It's an examination of why there are only two sexes (almost always). Why, indeed? Read the article. Among other things, it tells about a couple of cases of (sort of) more than two sexes, among animals.

Although the relation to biology required that the article be written for reasonably intelligent adults, I don't think there's anything particularly offensive.

Warning: some of the links in the article require membership in certain sites providing scientific journal content.

The second article may be somewhat more offensive to some readers. It explores the question of why most special homes for the aged prohibit sexual activity. (It indicates some of the answers, without mentioning any moral prohibitions.) Lest you wonder why anyone would even consider allowing any such, there's at least one good reason. Some inhabitants of such homes are long-time marriage partners.

As I say, this doesn't explore all the sides of this subject, but it does a good job with some of them.

Thanks for reading.

Repairing faces (and other parts), 2

I posted recently on a book on the ethics of surgery. I also read a second book, Surgically shaping children: technology, ethics, and the pursuit of normality, edited by Erik Parens. (Johns Hopkins, 2006) This one dealt with surgery for ambiguous genitalia, surgery to make dwarf children taller, and surgery to repair cleft palates and similar conditions, all in children.

This book had a wider range of contributors than the first one I read. They included persons who had the conditions described, parents of such, as well as ethicists and health providers. Partly for that reason, it would probably appeal more to the general public.

A few things stood out. One of them was suggested by the subtitle. Normality. What is it, and why do we pursue it. A particular dilemma was presented several times. That is this: "If diversity is to be affirmed, why would we expect children with facial 'abnormalities' to undergo surgery?" Why not just let them be, as long as health isn't threatened severely (or at all)? How much of such surgery is done for the sake of the parents, or the rest of us, not for the child?

Another aspect that stood out was that it is important to involve the child in decisions about surgery. This is not to say that, say, a nine-year-old is fully competent, but that a she should have an explanation of what is proposed, and how it will affect her, and have influence on the decision whether or not to operate.

I was surprised to find out that at least some persons who have had surgery to "repair" ambiguous or otherwise abnormal genitalia wish that they hadn't had it. It apparently often destroys sexual feeling. Another reason is that such surgery is usally done without involving the patient in the decision, because it is done on babies. Apparently this is not necessary.

Finally, there was a discussion about the training of surgeons. Surgeons are generally people who like to get in there and fix things, so are reluctant to hold off on surgery. They are also often not particularly well trained to work with the whole patient.

This book was certainly food for thought.

Repairing faces (and other parts), 1

I have recently read two books dealing with the ethics of certain types of surgery. One of these was Cutting to the Core : Ethics of Contested Surgeries, edited by David Benatar (Rowman and Littlefield, 2006). This book had many contributors. Besides being glad that at least someone is paying attention to the ethics of surgery, I was struck by three aspects of the book.

One aspect was genital surgery on young girls. Some cultures expect young girls to go through a surgery more or less parallel to male circumcision, or worse. The U. S. Congress was understandably horrified by this practice, and it has been outlawed here. So far, so good? Maybe, maybe not. Some recent immigrants are either going to illegal surgeons, or sending their daughters back to the home country to have the surgery, so that the law hasn't stopped the practice, just made it more expensive, more dangerous, or both. Furthermore, in many cases, a small nick, rather than more drastic surgery, would satisfy the claims of the culture, but attempts to allow this have run up against the law, which forbids any such surgery.

Another aspect of this surgery that I hadn't considered was that there is little regulation of male circumcision in the U. S., but lots of regulation of female equivalent surgery. This doesn't seem quite right.

The second aspect that I wish to mention is surgery designed to enhance attractiveness. No contributor spoke out against breast size enhancement, which surprised me. The contributors who wrote on this topic included a plastic surgeon and a feminist scholar. It seems to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with a society where many women feel that they need to have a "boob job," and where they feel more confident, not merely sexually, but generally, as a result. Can't we, whatever our sex, be content with the way we are, at least if it isn't grossly abnormal and/or life-threatening?

The third aspect is related to the second. That is this. More and more people are having surgery just to alter their appearance. Some of this is being done as art, some as cosmetic, and most of it for shock value. If I live very long, I expect to see someone growing feathers, with an extra eye, or with hair on the palms of their hands, for example. Is this right? If not, why not? Good questions.

I expect to post on the related book soon.

Thanks for reading.

I've been reading some Ursula K. Le Guin

For not the first time, I've been reading some Ursula K. Le Guin. See here, here, here, here, and, perhaps most importantly, here for some of my previous posts on her work. In the last post mentioned, I refer to Le Guin as "arguably, the most important U. S. fantastic writer of the twentieth century." I'm not the only person with that opinion. She is still writing. She says that she is a Taoist. Her work is well crafted, imaginative, and often deals with fundamental social issues.

One of her most important works was The Left Hand of Darkness (1969) one of the few books to win both the Hugo (voted on by science fiction fans) and Nebula (voted on by science fiction writers) awards. It is a great read, and one of the reasons is the biology Le Guin invented for the Gethenians. They look human, but differ in a most fundamental way -- they are neuter (somer) most of the time, and when they become sexual (kemmer) they may become either sex, and there's no way to predict which one. One of the most memorable phrases in the book is "The King was pregnant." There are few permanent monogamous relationships on Gethen. Most people visit the kemmerhouse when in kemmer, there to meet someone who is the opposite sex in this cycle.

I recently read "Coming of Age in Karhide: Sov Thade Tage em Ereb of Rer in Karhide, on Gethen," pp. 284 - 308, in Year's Best SF (New York:Harper Collins Eos, 2002) edited by David G. Hartwell. (Original copyright 1995, in New Legends.) The story, published over a quarter of a century after Left Hand, explains some aspects of their biology that weren't explained in Left Hand, namely how the Gethenians go through puberty and menopause (?). They can end up as externally either male or female, after their sexual cycles are through. She explains a little of how the kemmerhouse works. There is a doorkeeper, who is someone in permanent kemmer. The family escorts the adolescent to the kemmerhouse for the first experience. Accounts a little of the initial sexual experience.

I also read Le Guin's Unlocking the Air and Other Stories (New York: HarperPerennial, 1997) which I had never heard of, probably because it is, ostensibly, not fantastic literature. The book is an anthology of 18 of Le Guin's short fiction, published originally in a variety of locations, including Harper's and The New Yorker. I used the best quote from the book in yesterday's post. That passage came from "Ether, OR," a story about a small town in Le Guin's home state, Oregon, which changes location unpredictably, within the state. As the title suggests, it's an a story about ambiguity, and not just that of location. It is also told from several points of view, showing how the same events and situations can appear differently to different people. Le Guin is good at changing point of view. She did that brilliantly in Left Hand.

Here's perhaps the second best quotation from the book.

There are other stories. She goes back to the Krasnoy of Malafrena, a fictional city in a fictional country in Eastern Europe, in one of them. In another, she describes a unique twist on the story of Sleeping Beauty. In another, a girl grows to over forty feet tall. All in all, it's vintage Le Guin.

Thanks for reading.