March 2009, Esfahan, Iran.
I was having breakfast at the Amir Kabir hostel in Esfahan, where I was staying. As is common at hostels and while traveling, I was joined at my table by a fellow traveler. (In my ~17 days in Iran, I ate alone on only maybe three days. At least one meal a day with company.) I didn’t ask him his name. Lets call him Hans.
A followup to my earlier post about Polyamory.
Now that I’ve had time to think about it: I don’t support legal recognition of polyamory or relationships with more than two people.
My reasons?
- I think marital status should have nothing to do with state benefits. This entrenches it further.
- Not that this should matter, but many people in the poly community come across as uberliberal hipsters with an overblown sense of entitlement. I’m unwilling to let prohibitions against traditional polygamy be eroded for their sake.
- There is really no way to reconcile potential abuses with the desires of polys.
- It’s a way of expanding entitlements (welfare, dependents etc). I don’t want to pay for the expanded entitlements associated with 2+ person relationships.
- Travesties like this would be more common: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2008/02/08/4834833-sun.html
So, thats that. I’m sorry I wasted my time on this.
As most regular readers of this blog know, I’m a strong supporter of gay rights, and gay marriage. Straight but not narrow and all that. I’ve been trying to figure out where I stand on the issue of Polyamory. On the one hand you have a small group of people trying to be happy in the relationships that bring them the most joy, i.e. relationships with multiple members. I think those relationships are legitimate and should have some kind of legal standing. On the other hand, there are fundamentalists like the Mormons and Muslims, where the women in polygamous relationships usually have very few rights. I think those “relationships” should have no protection under the law, in the interests of protecting the rights of women. How would society balance the rights of both of these groups?
To clarify: I’m not a polyamorist, however, I do think people should be able to freely be in the kind of relationships that bring them happiness.
Continued below the fold.
Admin: Could you fill out this form please?
hoopy: <fills out form, hands over health card>
Admin: Can I have your address and date of birth please?
hoopy: <telling her address and date of birth>
Admin: Whats your religion? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want, it’s just for the government statistics.
hoopy: Oh. ok. Agnostic.
Admin: <browsing options on computer> …don’t think they have that…
hoopy: Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Admin: hmmm. <…still browsing…>
hoopy: Atheist? Or none?
Admin: hmmm… how about “No Organized Religion?”
hoopy: works for me. <sitting down and reading Cosmo>
An idea to end the practice of burkas / hijabs being worn in the west: Instead of making it illegal for women to wear the burka, lets make it mandatory for prostitutes to wear it.
- Heard somewhere.
cartoon by Terry Mosher, Montreal Gazette
Please direct criticism and death threats: here (NSFW). Thank you, come again.
You may also be interested in:
The Lonely Planet is running a contest where participants submit pictures of food, for a chance to win a copy of a Lonely Planet Guidebook, and have their picture featured by Lonely Planet on their twitter feed.
It’s also a chance for me to showcase some of my favorite travel pictures. Hi Lonely Planet. In case I win, I can be reached on twitter, or at:
hoopyfrood . a t . hoopyfrood . do t. org
These are some of my entries. I am submitting 24 pictures. I will post them on this blog, eight at a time.
You can see all of the entries at:
- Lonely Planet Food Photo Contest Part 1 of 3
- Lonely Planet Food Photo Contest Part 2 of 3
- Lonely Planet Food Photo Contest Part 3 of 3
Click below the fold to see the pictures.
Read the rest of this entry »
The Lonely Planet is running a contest where participants submit pictures of food, for a chance to win a copy of a Lonely Planet Guidebook, and have their picture featured by Lonely Planet on their twitter feed.
It’s also a chance for me to showcase some of my favorite travel pictures. Hi Lonely Planet. In case I win, I can be reached on twitter, or at:
hoopyfrood . a t . hoopyfrood . do t. org
These are some of my entries. I am submitting 24 pictures. I will post them on this blog, eight at a time.
You can see all of the entries at:
- Lonely Planet Food Photo Contest Part 1 of 3
- Lonely Planet Food Photo Contest Part 2 of 3
- Lonely Planet Food Photo Contest Part 3 of 3
Click below the fold to see the pictures.
Read the rest of this entry »
The Lonely Planet is running a contest where participants submit pictures of food, for a chance to win a copy of a Lonely Planet Guidebook, and have their picture featured by Lonely Planet on their twitter feed.
It’s also a chance for me to showcase some of my favorite travel pictures. Hi Lonely Planet. In case I win, I can be reached on twitter, or at:
hoopyfrood . a t . hoopyfrood . do t. org
These are some of my entries. I am submitting 24 pictures. I will post them on this blog, eight at a time.
You can see all of the entries at:
- Lonely Planet Food Photo Contest Part 1 of 3
- Lonely Planet Food Photo Contest Part 2 of 3
- Lonely Planet Food Photo Contest Part 3 of 3
Click below the fold to see the pictures.
I don’t remember where I heard this story. But it goes like this:
Once upon a time, lets say in the 1980s, an American economist visited China. He was graciously welcomed by his hosts, the Chinese government, given an official minder, and shown around. He was shown many things the Chinese were proud of: the factories they were building, the Great Wall etc. Then he was taken to the construction site of a giant dam, where thousands of workers were industriously toiling away with shovels, building a barricade.
He asked his minders: “How come all these people are using shovels? You could get a couple of bulldozers and have a few people finish the job much quicker and more efficiently.”
His minder replied: “Yes, but we wouldn’t be able to keep all these people employed then.”
To which the economist replied: “Ah, so it’s employment you want, not productivity. Well in that case you should take away the shovels and give all these people spoons.”
It’s a story most decision makers would do well to keep in mind. Too often, means become an end in themselves. And a by-product of the ultimate goal becomes the goal. At the expense of all else. I’m sure there’s a management term for it. Michael Porter or Drucker or one of those gurus probably came up with something. Goal-derivative scope creep or something like that.
For more on the difference between Production vs. Employment and why Production is a more desirable goal, I suggest reading this post about it that goes into much more detail:
For my money, I would go for a system that is hell bent upon production and having produced, hell bent upon an equitable distribution. Given scarce resources, the most efficient production method is most desirable. If that means more computers in banks, so be it. So you have to lay off bank clerks. But if you look around, humans are somewhat inventive and entrepreneurial. The system adjusts — not smoothly or costlessly — but eventually. And if done with sufficient forethought, without too much pain.
India is in the process of amending its constitution so that one third of seats in the lower house of Parliament will be reserved for women.
I’m against this amendment, I think it’s a terrible idea.
Here is how this will work:
- There are currently 545 seats in the lower house of Parliament
- 180 of those seats will be reserved for women
- Which of the 180 out of 545 constituencies are to be reserved for women will be decided through a lottery system, every election.
- The same constituency cannot be reserved for women twice in a row under the rotation-lottery system.
So, basically, about two-third of sitting parliamentarians will be unable to run from their constituencies every election. If you thought it wasn’t possible to make elections in India any more anarchial, you were wrong.
In a sane world, politicians would be accountable to their constituents. Lets assume this happens for the most part, even in India (Though I would say it doesn’t). But now that most members of Parliament are not going to be able to run from their constituencies, there is going to be no incentive to be accountable at all.
Due to a number of factors, India has thrown up very few female political leaders. That is partially what this bill is trying to fix. However, one of the reasons that there are very few female political leaders is that very few women have an electoral base upon which to draw. The few exceptions have been women who are leaders of regional or caste based parties. Far more common are situations in which male politicians put their wives or daughters forward as a placeholder for their seat while they deal with criminal charges or attend to other business. I think something like that is what will happen for the most part. With a few exceptions, every election cycle about 180 men will let their wives, daughters, or other “trusted” women contest their seat and keep it warm for them, while conducting business as usual, and enjoying the privileges of being in power (i.e. abuse of power) without actually being in power.
I don’t think being related to a politician should be a disqualifying factor. I’m saying ability should be the qualifying factor, not nepotism.
Let’s say that some effective, ethical, qualified women make it through and get elected. What happens in the next election? They have to run from a new constituency, or drop out of the race altogether. (I believe they may be able to run from the same constituency without the protection of affirmative action. Realistically, their own parties wouldn’t allow it, they would need to make room for the male politicians displaced by the lottery. The media and their opponents would present them in a bad light as not “knowing their place” as well.) Where do the voters and their interests come in? *pause for derisive laughter for asking that question* They don’t.
So, I think the implementation of the idea of reserved seats for women is being badly done. However, I also disagree with the basic premise of gender, caste, or any other category of affirmative action for parliamentary seats.
As Nitin Pai says on his blog:
Firstly, reservations and entitlements are not the best way for a democratic country to order its society. History has shown that once an entitlement or a reservation is put in place, it is impossible to revoke — regardless of whether the purpose for which it was intended has been achieved or not. Reservations create no incentives for those entitled to them to break away from them and enter the mainstream. Besides it is a fallacy to believe that women legislators solve women’s problems better. And the idea of free and fair elections is for the electorate to choose who, in its combined opinion, is the best person for the job. Interfering with the course of free and fair elections seriously undermines democracy.
.
.
.
Indian women have been politically empowered (in law) since 26th January 1950. But economic and social empowerment has been elusive. Laws and regulations — sometimes introduced with the intention to protect them — have only led to their economic marginalisation. Other laws, like those allowing Muslims to follow a different civil code from people of other faiths, have led to cases like Shah Bano or Imrana.
I agree with Nitin in that the people that run India should be working towards fixing the inconsistencies in laws that deny certain rights to women with muslim fathers, brothers or husbands. Towards greater reproductive choice for women. And towards better and more widespread education for girls, which is truly empowering. Like most people who weren’t part of the brahmin “upper” caste, male land-owners or priests, women in India have been screwed over as far back as history can show us. While empowering women is a worthy goal, it’s going to take a while, a couple of generations if India has the will, and much much longer if they don’t. They don’t, which is why Indians are getting these half-baked measures that distract from real reform.
I really see very little going for this bill. It’s a flawed implementation of a flawed solution. It’ll probably pass. FSM help them all.
__________
Edit: It’s come to my attention that this reservation of seats for women will last for only fifteen years, not indefinitely. I can see this debate being revived in about fourteen years and the reservations being renewed by the decision makers of the day though. This time limit makes it only a slightly less bad idea. It’s sort of like the difference between being kicked in the nuts by a horse, and being kicked in the nuts by a horse wearing socks.
by Gaddis
by Harris
by Sachs