INDCJournal: Quick Links

« Day Off | Main | Charting the NAACP's Slide Towards Irrelevance »

February 03, 2006

Quick Links

Posted by Bill

*** Dean authors an excellent post about artificial wombs, scoring points against those who doubt that a market for the technology exists. I agree with Dean: the development of working artificial wombs could change the pro-life/pro-choice dynamic, as the concept of fetal viability advances out of the realm of a political/legal compromise and into practical application. As Dean concludes in his summary:

Once we have it working well, it's going to fundamentally alter the abortion debate in ways that neither hard-line pro-choicers nor hard-line pro-lifers are going to be fully comfortable with.

*** In an e-mail exchange, Slate's William Saletan challenges Katha Pollitt's left-wing strawman about opposition to abortion equalling puritanical opposition to sex:

Don't these numbers refute your conflation of opposition to abortion with opposition to sex? You say it's impossible to make contraceptive diligence a moral issue because contraception comes from the "anti-Puritan side" of our culture, and people who oppose abortion, being Puritans, also oppose birth control. How, then, do you explain the 30 percent to 35 percent of respondents in this poll who joined the majority for reducing abortions but also joined the majorities for government-funded contraception and contraceptive education? Given that they control the majority on all three questions, wouldn't you like to have them on your side?

Bingo. The argument that all (or most) of those opposed to abortion do so out of a desire to control women or diminish sexual freedom are marinating in ideology, cherry-picking a slice of the opposition and presenting it as a representation of the whole. And pro-life absolutists that ignore the fact of significant majorities in favor of legal access to early abortions have analogous issues with the realities of the debate.

*** Kevin Drum looks at gender differences in school achievement, and politely shoots down an attempt to underplay the gap between male and female college enrollment:

Hulbert has a point, but she also glosses over some very real differences. The chart on the right shows the NAEP data she relies on for her conclusion (see page 28 in this report for a bigger version), and although the trendlines are indeed pretty stable, it's worth noting that NAEP test results are extremely sensitive: 10 points is roughly equal to one grade level. This means that in 1985, 17-year-old girls were about one grade level ahead of boys in reading and in 2001 they were about 1.3 grade levels ahead. That's a pretty sizable difference, and I think Hulbert is wrong to dismiss it so casually.

This isn't the first time that an interested party has situationally underplayed statistics to diminish an uncomfortable narrative about men falling behind women in education.

One quibble I have with Drum's post:

Overall, I'm inclined to agree with Hulbert that viewing educational differences through a gender lens has limited utility, regardless of whether those differences are caused by biology, culture, or anything else. It's not the biggest problem on our plate, and it's not at all clear that gender-specific teaching styles would accomplish very much anyway. Still, facts are facts: high school girls read at a significantly higher level than high school boys, and as other barriers against women have dropped over the years, it should hardly come as a surprise that this advantage has transformed itself into higher college graduation rates. Whether it's our biggest problem or not, it's probably one worth paying attention to.

I wouldn't overestimate the reading gap as the sole or necessarily dominant reason for boys falling behind in college enrollment; it's also a reflection of how males vs. females tend to learn, among other factors.

Posted by Bill at February 3, 2006 07:20 AM | TrackBack (3)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2309

Comments

I hate to put it so crassly and tritely, but, Kevin's just being a sexist here. He is. Here's the truth: the vast majority of our prison population is male, and the vast majority of them are high school dropouts and semi-literate. It's a hard, hard truth, and one that liberals like him used to consider one of their top concerns, their top priorities for making society a better place. You have to ask: what changed his mind?

Posted by: Dean Esmay at February 3, 2006 08:03 AM

I believe that I agree with you on why he's underplaying it.

But at the same time, I tend to agree with his semi-apathetic approach; not because I don't think there's a problem, rather, because the only aggressive solutions that I can think of smack of overreaching social engineering.

I can't endorse gender identity politics and advocacy for men when I don't much agree with its excesses in the feminist movement.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at February 3, 2006 08:12 AM

"You have to ask: what changed his mind?"

The realization by Democrats that convicts don't vote.

"I can't endorse gender identity politics and advocacy for men when I don't much agree with its excesses in the feminist movement."

Agreed, but I wonder if the excesses by the feminist movement aren't causing some of the problems for the boys now. From what I see I sure as shit wouldn't want to be in high school right now.

Posted by: B Moe at February 3, 2006 09:05 AM

Certainly not helping, that's for sure.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at February 3, 2006 11:50 AM

Pollitt somehow combines being a Stalinist with being a twit. Before he went crazy, Sully eviscerated her on NPR in fall 2001, on her opposition to everything in the War on Terror. He finally asked in exasperation what she thought we should do. She was stumped. Sully: "Your stammering is eloquent."

She finally said - I'm not making this up - "Well, I think we could have like an American flag with a peace sign where the stars are." Good. That should do it.

Posted by: beautifulatrocities at February 3, 2006 03:30 PM

I've managed to save up roughly $18172 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?

Posted by: Courtney Gidts at May 18, 2006 10:39 PM

It looks like you really had a nice time. nokia6630

Posted by: mae at July 23, 2006 06:54 AM

This is the coolest La Cocina. nokia6630

Posted by: Peter at July 25, 2006 03:20 PM

http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site. ringtones site free, ringtones site, Free nokia ringtones here. From website .

Posted by: ringtones free at August 7, 2006 07:35 AM

Posted by: Warsaw apartments at October 13, 2006 11:08 AM

ioqvp vhapiuy wxceqhudl tmqa hmvygnwra lmjkr pbtjsog

Posted by: xgfoyhcz siqr at March 3, 2007 05:37 AM