A new study identifies two likely consequences when a man ogles a woman: Her performance in math goes down, and her interest in being with him goes up. The researchers suggest that perhaps such looking should be suppressed by law. (Christian Science Monitor)

To jump from a negative consequence for women to legal suppression ignores the consequences of such suppression for both sexes. Although the supposed study showing that men live longer if they look at women turns out to be a myth, men certainly derive pleasure from such looking, and perhaps other benefits as well. And suppressing it would mean suppressing natural behavior — yet another instance of targeting masculinity.

The consequences for women may be bad as well. For one thing, some women find value in being found attractive, and this may be (I should think, is) natural too. For another, the harder it is for a man to avoid conduct that might be interpreted as sexual harassment, the stronger his incentive to avoid interacting with women at work at all.

So what to do about the math scores?

Well, previous studies have shown that reminding someone of other people’s stereotype-based expectations can affect her performance. I recall one in which Asian women, before being given a math test, were told either that Asians are good at math or that women are bad at math. The ones reminded of the positive stereotype did better; the ones reminded of the negative stereotype did worse. And this was so even though the test subjects presumably knew that, as Asian women, they were subject to both stereotypes.

There is a stereotype in our society that good-looking women are dumb, and another stereotype that men think good-looking women are dumb. If a woman accepts these stereotypes, then she may interpret ogling as telling her she’s expected to be dumb, and she may play the part in the same way as the Asian women who were reminded that they were women. Moreover, if at some level she wants to be attractive (as I think most people of both sexes do), and she thinks stupidity is attractive to men, this may motivate her to act less intelligent.

More simply, it could just be the stereotype of women as bad at math: Ogling certainly reminds a woman that she’s a woman.

If the stereotypes are involved in the effect the study attributes to ogling, perhaps changing the stereotypes could have a positive effect on women’s performance — and even make the effect of ogling positive, if it becomes a reminder that you’re pretty and that pretty women are good, rather than bad, at math.

In light of the Egyptian government’s attempt to deprive Egyptians of Internet access, The Washington Post asks whether a technology unknown through most of human history can be a human right. One answer: The right to communicate online is simply an instance of the right to speak and listen, and that is indeed fundamental.

A broader point: Moral rights are natural rights — rights rooted in human nature, in what a human being needs to live and flourish. Since man is a technological animal, part of our nature is to develop new ways to do the things we need to do, that is, to exercise our rights. The same principles of rights continue to protect us — and remain just as natural as when they protect acts we can do with no tools beyond our own minds and bodies.

If people who own their homes have a constitutionally protected right to keep guns there, what about students who live on campus? Aaron Tribble, midway through a law degree at the University of Idaho, thinks he has the same right — and he’s getting some experience in constitutional law trying to enforce it. (The Daily Caller)

In memory of the Challenger astronauts, I post here a poem I suspect most of them knew.

The arching sky is calling
Spacemen back to their trade
All hands, stand by, free falling
And the lights below us fade
Out ride the sons of Terra
Far drives the thund’ring jet
Up leaps the race of Earthmen
Out, far, and onward yet!

We pray for one last landing
On the globe that gave us birth
Let us rest our eyes on fleecy skies
And the cool, green hills of Earth.

ROBERT A. HEINLEIN, THE GREEN HILLS OF EARTH.

For many Americans, including me, the Challenger was our first experience of a major public loss — one might even think of a Challenger generation as coming between the Kennedy assassination generation and the 9/11 generation. But more important even than such a loss is how one responds to it. Do you accept the challenge, as it were, and work on developing your courage? Or do you take the loss as a cautionary tale?

The only worthy memorial to heroes is the courage of the living.

Heinlein once said the short story in which this poem appeared was his most successful work. I don’t remember when it was he said that, but even after The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Time Enough for Love, and Stranger in a Strange Land (the origin of the word “grok”), it may well be true. If you haven’t read it, and you like science fiction at all, I recommend it.

Got Dignity?

The We Won’t Fly campaign has announced that its first billboard is up near Philadelphia. It gets the point across quite well, I think.

Disclaimer: I participated in the discussion of ad designs on We Won’t Fly’s Facebook page.

As Japan’s ageing electorate spends more tax money on the old than on the young, and young would-be workers find it hard to get traditional Japanese corporate jobs, many young Japanese are becoming apathetic — yet quietly rebelling by refusing to support the pension system. (The New York Times)

By comparison, the U.S. federal government spends about a third of its budget on Social Security and Medicare, according to White House figures for 2010. (Link to figures from PolitiFact.) The figure for education is much smaller, but much of the government money for education in the United States comes from states and localities.

Spending on the elderly is bound to grow as the population ages. (The so-called Social Security trust fund is government debt, which, however sound an investment it may be in private hands, is utterly worthless in the government’s hands. You can’t make yourself richer by writing yourself IOUs.) And the debt that’s not in government hands is, if honored, a transfer of wealth from the young and unborn (who will be taxed to pay it) to those who enjoy the benefits of today’s spending yet are likely to be in lower tax brackets (if not six feet under) when the bill comes due.

At what point will Americans get discouraged?

This is not how Loch Lomond usually sounds.

Hollaback, an effort to end “street harassment,” holds that “what specifically counts as street harassment is determined by those who experience it” — so if a man compliments a woman and she doesn’t like it, this can count as harassment, and, according to Hollaback, shaming tactics are an appropriate response — tactics that can include posting the man’s picture online.

So when executive director Emily May talks about feeling silenced, my first response is: You’re the one doing the silencing. Feminists have largely driven a wide range of male speech out of the workplace through sexual harassment law, and Ms. May wants to suppress it on the street, too. Talking about verbal expressions of masculine sexuality as harassment and violence depicts masculinity as something to be ashamed of, and it can do serious spiritual injury to men.

Yet in a speech, Ms. May describes the world she wants to build in terms that sound quite, well, attractive, even from a specifically masculine perspective:

I want to build a world in which good morning means nothing more than good morning and we can say it to people who do not look or think anything like us.  I think that good morning has the power to change the world and the way people live in it. I think in this world where good morning never means anything more than good morning, the nice guys will come out of the woodwork.  They’ll be able to say things like, you look nice today and it will be heard as a compliment. And I think as women, will be able to wipe that tough girl look off of our faces because we will know that no matter what we wear, no matter what we wear, no matter what we wear, that the days of “she was asking for it” will be over.  And everyday will be like a pride parade because we will be able to be authentically who we are, because none of us are as simple as a list of physical attributes.

Still, her characterization of speech that isn’t explicitly threatening as a form of violence is simply wrong.

Here’s the speech, in text and video. H/T @underbellie

Progressives, in the name of efficiently serving the public, like to empower expert government agencies. But the public, and especially those segments of the public progressives like to think they’re defending, end up getting “serviced” (in a bad sense), because well-organized interests such as large corporations are more influential in the administrative branch than in Congress, a paper from the libertarian Cato Institute argues. (Daily Caller)

Keeping power where people can see it and influence it — keeping the democratic elements of our government powerful — has value if participation in “ruling and being ruled” is part of flourishing. But it also has value if, as a result, one’s interests are better considered in the governing process.

The ancient Greeks and Romans — some of them, at least — may have had a less hostile view of other peoples than is commonly thought, a new book suggests, and this offers some hope that we don’t have to divide and hate, a reviewer argues. (Chronicle of Higher Education)

© 2010 Flourishing Now Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha