#the op was like “they should have to study literature and the human condition like ME” | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tvdas · 4 years

Photo

John Berryman in 1966, two years after the publication of “77 Dream Songs.” The Heartsick Hilarity of John Berryman’s Letters is a book review by Anthony Lane (in The New Yorker) of The Selected Letters of John Berryman. The book is edited by Philip Coleman and Calista McRae and published by the Belknap Press, at Harvard. My acquaintance, the generous Philip Coleman, mailed me a copy of this book at the end of October. Lane writes, “. . . anyone who delights in listening to Berryman, and who can’t help wondering how the singer becomes the songs, will find much to treasure here, in these garrulous and pedantic pages. There is hardly a paragraph in which Berryman—poet, pedagogue, boozehound, and symphonic self-destroyer—may not be heard straining toward the condition of music. ‘I have to make my pleasure out of sound,’ he says. The book is full of noises, heartsick with hilarity, and they await their transmutation into verse.” Here is the book review:

The poet John Berryman was born in 1914, in McAlester, Oklahoma. He was educated at Columbia and then in England, where he studied at Cambridge, met W. H. Auden and Dylan Thomas, and lit a cigarette for W. B. Yeats. All three men left traces in Berryman’s early work. In 1938, he returned to New York and embarked upon a spate of teaching posts in colleges across the land, beginning at Wayne State University and progressing to stints at Harvard, Princeton, Cincinnati, Berkeley, Brown, and other arenas in which he could feel unsettled. The history of his health, physical and mental, was no less fitful and spasmodic, and alcohol, which has a soft spot for poets, found him an easy mark. In a similar vein, his romantic life was lunging, irrepressible, and desperate, so much so that it squandered any lasting claim to romance. Thrice married, he fathered a son and two daughters. He died in 1972, by jumping from the Washington Avenue Bridge in Minneapolis. To the appalled gratification of posterity, his fall was witnessed by somebody named Art Hitman.

Berryman would have laughed at that. In an existence that was littered with loss, the one thing that never failed him, apart from his unwaning and wax-free ear for English verse, was his sense of humor. The first that I heard of Berryman was this:

Life, friends, is boring. We must not say so. After all, the sky flashes, the great sea yearns, we ourselves flash and yearn, and moreover my mother told me as a boy (repeatingly) ‘Ever to confess you’re bored means you have no

Inner Resources.’ I conclude now I have no inner resources, because I am heavy bored. Peoples bore me, literature bores me, especially great literature, Henry bores me, with his plights & gripes as bad as achilles,

who loves people and valiant art, which bores me. And the tranquil hills, & gin, look like a drag and somehow a dog has taken itself & its tail considerably away into mountains or sea or sky, leaving behind: me, wag.

“Wag” meaning a witty fellow, or “wag” meaning that he is of no more use than the back end of a mutt? Who on earth is Henry? Also, whoever’s talking, why does he address us as “friends,” as if he were Mark Antony and we were a Roman mob, and why can’t he even honor Achilles—the hero of the Iliad, a foundation stone of “great literature”—with a capital letter? You have to know such literature pretty well before you earn the right to claim that it tires you out. Few knew it better than Berryman, or shouldered the burdens of serious reading with a more remorseless joy. As he once said, “When it came to a choice between buying a book and a sandwich, as it often did, I always chose the book.”

“Life, friends” is the fourteenth of “The Dream Songs,” the many-splendored enterprise that consumed Berryman’s energies in the latter half of his career, and on which his reputation largely rests. His labors on the Songs began in 1955 and led to “77 Dream Songs,” which was published in 1964 and won him a Pulitzer Prize. In the course of the Songs, which he regarded as one long poem, he is represented, or unreliably impersonated, by a figure named Henry, who undergoes “the whole humiliating Human round” on his behalf. As Berryman explained, “Henry both is and is not me, obviously. We touch at certain points.” In 1968, along came a further three hundred and eight Songs, under the title “His Toy, His Dream, His Rest.” (A haunting phrase, which grabs the seven ages of man, as outlined in “As You Like It,” and squeezes them down to three.) Two days after publication, he was asked, by the Harvard Advocate, about his profession. “Being a poet is a funny kind of jazz. It doesn’t get you anything,” he said. “It’s just something you do.”

There was plenty of all that jazz. Berryman forsook the distillations of Eliot for the profusion of Whitman; the Dream Songs, endlessly rocking and rolling, surge onward in waves. Lay them aside, and you still have the other volumes of Berryman’s poems, including “The Dispossessed” (1948), “Homage to Mistress Bradstreet” (1956), and “Love & Fame” (1970). Bundled together, they fill nearly three hundred pages. If magnitude freaks you out, there are slimmer selections—one from the Library of America, edited by Kevin Young, the poetry editor of this magazine, and another, “The Heart Is Strange,” compiled by Daniel Swift to toast the centenary, in 2014, of the poet’s birth. And don’t forget the authoritative 1982 biography by John Haffenden, who also put together a posthumous collection, “Henry’s Fate and Other Poems,” in 1977, as well as “Berryman’s Shakespeare” (1999), a Falstaffian banquet of his scholarly work on the Bard. Some of Berryman’s critical writings are clustered, invaluably, in “The Freedom of the Poet” (1976). In short, you need space on your shelves, plus a clear head, if you want to join the Berrymaniacs. Proceed with caution; we can be a cranky bunch.

Of late, Berryman’s star has waned. Its glow was never steady in the first place, but it has dimmed appreciably, because of lines like these:

Arrive a time when all coons lose dere grip, but is he come? Le’s do a hoedown, gal.

“The Dream Songs” is a hubbub, and some of it is spoken in blackface—or, to be accurate, in what might be described as blackvoice. It deals in unembarrassed minstrelsy, complete with a caricature of verbal tics, all too pointedly transcribed: “Now there you exaggerate, Sah. We hafta die.” To say that Berryman was airing the prejudices of his era is hardly to exonerate him; in any case, he seems to be evoking, in purposeful anachronism, an all but vanished age of vaudeville. Kevin Young, who is Black, prefaces his choice of Berryman’s poetry by arguing, “Much of the force of The Dream Songs comes from its use of race and blackface to express a (white) self unraveling.” Some readers will share Young’s generously inquiring attitude; others will veer away from Berryman and never go back.

For anyone willing to stick around, there’s a new book on the block. “The Selected Letters of John Berryman” weighs in at more than seven hundred pages. It is edited by Philip Coleman and Calista McRae, and published by the Belknap Press, at Harvard—a selfless undertaking, given that Berryman derides Harvard as “a haven for the boring and the foolish,” wherein “my students display a form of illiterate urbanity which will soon become very depressing.” (Not that other colleges elude his gibes. Berkeley is summed up as “Paradise, with anthrax.”) The earliest letter, dated September, 1925, is from the schoolboy Berryman to his parents, and ends, “I love you too much to talk about.” In a pleasing symmetry, the final letter printed here, from 1971, shows Berryman rejoicing in his own parenthood. He tells a friend, “We had a baby, Sarah Rebecca, in June—a beauty.”

And what lies in between? More or less the polyphony that you’d expect, should you come pre-tuned into Berryman. “Vigour & fatigue, confidence & despair, the elegant & the blunt, the bright & the dry.” Such is the medley, he says, that he finds in the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins, and you can feel Berryman swooping with similar freedom from one tone to the next. “Books I’ve got, copulation I need,” he writes from Cambridge, at the age of twenty-two, thus initiating a lifelong and dangerous refrain. When he reports, two years later, that “I was attacked by an excited loneliness which is still with me and which has so far produced fifteen poems,” is that a grouse or a boast? There are alarming valedictions: “Nurse w. another shot. no more now,” or, “Maybe I better go get a bottle of whisky; maybe I better not.” There are letters to Ezra Pound, one of which, sent with “atlantean respect & affection,” announces, “What we want is a new form of the daring,” a very Poundian demand. And there are smart little swerves into the aphoristic—“Writers should be heard and not seen”; “All modern writers are complicated before they are good”—or into courteous eighteenth-century brusquerie. Pastiche can be useful when you have a grudge to convey: “My dear Sir: You are plainly either a fool or a scoundrel. It is kinder to think you a fool; and so I do.” It’s a letter best taken with a pinch of snuff.

Berryman was a captious and self-heating complainer, slow to cool. Just as the first word of the Iliad means “Wrath,” so the first word of the opening Dream Song is “Huffy.” Seldom can you predict the cause of his looming ire. A concert performance by the Stradivarius Quartet, in the fall of 1941, drives him away: “Beethoven’s op. 130 they took now to be a circus, now to be a sea-chantey, & I fled in the middle to escape their Cavatina.” The following year, an epic letter to his landlord, on Grove Street, in Boston, is almost entirely concerned with a refrigerator, which has “developed a high-pitched scream.” Berryman was not an easy man to live with, or to love, and the likelihood that even household appliances found his company intolerable cannot be dismissed.

Yet the poet was scarcely unique in his vexations; we all have our fridges to bear. Something else, far below the hum of daily pique, resounds through this massive book—a ground bass of doom and dejection. “You may prepare my coffin.” “If this reaches you, you will know I got as far as a letter-box at any rate.” “I write in haste, being back in Hell.” Such are the dirges to which Berryman treats his friends, in the winter of 1939–40, and the odd jauntiness in which he couches his misery somehow makes it worse. It’s one thing to write, “I am fed up with pretending to be alive when in fact I am not,” but quite another to dispatch those words, as Berryman did, to someone whom you are courting; the recipient was Eileen Mulligan, whom he married nine months later, in October, 1942. To the critic Mark Van Doren, who had been his mentor at Columbia, he was more formal in his woe, declaring, “Each year I hope that next year will find me dead, and so far I have been disappointed, but I do not lose that hope, which is almost my only one.” We are close to the borders of Beckett.

There are definite jitters of comedy in so funereal a pose, and detractors of Berryman would say that he keeps trying on his desolation, like a man getting fitted for a dark suit. The trouble is that we know how he died. Even if he is putting on an act, for the horrified benefit of his correspondents, it is still a rehearsal for the main event, and you can’t inspect the long lament that he sends to Eileen in 1953—after they have separated—without glancing ahead, almost twenty years, to the dénouement of his days. The letter leaps, like one of those 3 a.m. frettings which every insomniac will recognize, directly from money to death. “I only have $2.15 to live through the week,” the poet says, before laying out his plans. “My insurance, the only sure way of paying my debts, expires on Thursday. So unless something happens I have to kill myself day after tomorrow evening or earlier.” To be specific, “What I am going to do is drop off the George Washington bridge. I believe one dies on the way down.” If Berryman is playing Cassandra to himself, crying out the details of his own quietus, how did the cry begin?

It is tempting to turn biography into cartography—unrolling the record of somebody’s life, smoothing it flat, and indicating the major fork in the road. Most of us rebut this thesis, as we amble maplessly along. In Berryman’s case, however, there was a fork, so terrible and so palpable that no account of him, and no encounter with his poems, can afford to ignore it. The road didn’t simply split in two; it was cratered, in the summer of 1926, when his father, John Allyn Smith, committed suicide.

The family was living in Clearwater, Florida, at the time, and young John was eleven years old. There was a bizarre prelude to the calamity, when his brother, Robert, was taken out by their father for a swim in the Gulf. What occurred next remains murky, but it seemed, for a while, as if they would not be returning to shore. One of the Dream Songs takes up the tale, mixing memory and denial:

Also I love him: me he’s done no wrong for going on forty years—forgiveness time— I touch now his despair, he felt as bad as Whitman on his tower but he did not swim out with me or my brother as he threatened—

a powerful swimmer, to         take one of us along as company in the defeat sublime, freezing my helpless mother: he only, very early in the morning, rose with his gun and went outdoors by my window and did what was needed.

I cannot read that wretched mind, so strong & so undone. I’ve always tried. I—I’m trying to forgive whose frantic passage, when he could not live an instant longer, in the summer dawn left Henry to live on.

Smith’s death would become the primal wound for his older son. Notice how the tough and Hemingway-tinged curtness of “did what was needed” gives way, all too soon, to the halting stammer of “I—I’m trying.” The wound was suppurating and unhealable, and there is little doubt that it deepened the festering of Berryman’s life. As he writes in one of the final Dream Songs, “I spit upon this dreadful banker’s grave / who shot his heart out in a Florida dawn / O ho alas alas.” Haffenden quotes these lines, raw with recrimination, in his biography; dryly informs us that the poet, in fact, never visited his father’s grave; and supplies us with relevant notes that Berryman made in 1970—two years before he, in turn, found a bridge and did what he thought was needed. He sounds like a patient striving mightily to become his own shrink:

Did I myself feel any guilt perhaps—long-repressed if so & this is mere speculation (defense here) about Daddy’s death? (I certainly pickt up enough of Mother’s self-blame to accuse her once, drunk & raging, of having actually murdered him & staged a suicide.)

Alternatively:

So maybe my long self-pity has been based on an error, and there has been no (hero-) villain (Father) ruling my life, but only an unspeakably powerful possessive adoring mother, whose life at 75 is still centered wholly on me. And my (omnipotent) feeling that I can get away with anything.

For readers who ask themselves, browsing through “Berryman’s Shakespeare,” why the poet bent his attention, again and again, to “Hamlet,” to the plight of the prince, and to the preoccupations—as Berryman boldly construed them—of the man who wrote the play, here is an answer of sorts. And, for anyone wanting more of this unholy psychodrama, consider the list of characters. Berryman’s mother, born Martha Little, married John Allyn Smith. Less than eleven weeks after his death, she married her landlord, John Angus McAlpin Berryman, and thereafter called herself Jill, or Jill Angel. As for the poet, he was baptized with his father’s name, was known as Billy in infancy, and then, in deference to his brand-new stepfather, became John Berryman. This is like Hamlet having to call himself Claudius, Jr., on top of everything else. As Berryman remarks, “Damn Berrymans and their names.”

A book of back-and-forth correspondence with his mother was published in 1988, under the title “We Dream of Honour.” (Having picked up the habit of British spelling, at Cambridge, Berryman never kicked it.) Inexcusably, it’s now out of print, but worth tracking down; and you could swear, as you leaf through it, that you’d stumbled upon a love affair. The son says to the mother, “I hope you’re well, darling, and less worried.” The mother tells the son, “I have loved you too much for wisdom, or it is perhaps nearer truth to say that with love or in anger, I am not wise.” We are offered a facsimile of a letter from 1953, in which Berryman begins, “Mother, I have always failed; but I am not failing now.”

One obvious shortfall in the “Selected Letters” is that “We Dream of Honour” took the cream of the crop. Only eight letters here are addressed to Martha, six of them mailed from school, and, if you’re approaching Berryman as a novice, your take on him will be unavoidably skewed. By way of compensation, we get a wildly misconceived letter of advice from the middle-aged Berryman to his son, Paul, concluding with the maxim “Strong fathers crush sons.” Paul was four at the time. Haffenden has already cited that letter, however, and doubts whether it was ever sent. One item in the new book that I have never read before, and would prefer not to read again, is a letter from the fourteen-year-old Berryman to his stepfather, whom he calls Uncle Jack, and before whom he cringes as if whipped. “I’m a coward, a cheat, a bully, and a thief if I had the guts to steal,” the boy writes. Things get worse: “I have none of the fine qualities or emotions, and all the baser ones. I don’t understand why God permitted me to be born.” He signs himself “John Berryman,” the sender mirroring the recipient, and adds, “P.S. I’m a disgrace to your name.”

To read such words is to marvel that Berryman survived as long as he did. If one virtue emerged from the wreckage of his early years, it was a capacity to console; later, in the midst of his drinking and his lechery, he remained a reliable guide to grief, and to the blast area that surrounds it. In May, 1955, commiserating with Saul Bellow, whose father has just passed away, Berryman writes, “Unfortunately I am in a v g position to feel with you: my father died for me all over again last week.” He unfolds his larger theme: “His father’s death is one of the few main things that happens to a man, I think, and it matters greatly to the life when it happens.” Bellow’s affliction, Berryman reassures him, lofts him into illustrious company: “Shakespeare was probably in the middle of Hamlet and I think his effort increased.” Freud and Luther are then added to the roster of the fruitfully bereaved.

None of this will surprise an admirer of the Dream Songs. Among the loveliest are those in which the poet mourns departed friends, such as Robert Frost, Louis MacNeice, Theodore Roethke, and Delmore Schwartz. Berryman the comic, who can be scabrously funny, not least at his own expense, consorts with Berryman the frightener (“In slack times visit I the violent dead / and pick their awful brains”) and Berryman the elegist, who can summon whole twilights of sorrow. In this, a tribute to Randall Jarrell, he gradually allows the verse to run on, like overflowing water, across the line breaks, with a grace denied to our harshly end-stopped lives:

In the night-reaches dreamed he of better graces, of liberations, and beloved faces, such as now ere dawn he sings. It would not be easy, accustomed to these things, to give up the old world, but he could try; let it all rest, have a good cry.

Let Randall rest, whom your self-torturing cannot restore one instant’s good to, rest: he’s left us now. The panic died and in the panic’s dying so did my old friend. I am headed west also, also, somehow.

In the chambers of the end we’ll meet again I will say Randall, he’ll say Pussycat and all will be as before when as we sought, among the beloved faces, eminence and were dissatisfied with that and needed more.

A photograph of 1941 shows Berryman in a dark coat, a hat, and a bow tie. His jaw is clean-shaven and firm. With his thin-rimmed spectacles and his ready smile, he looks like a spry young stockbroker on his way home from church. Skip ahead to the older Berryman, and you observe a very different beast, with a beard like the mane of a disenchanted lion. Finches could roost in it. The rims of his glasses are now thick and black, and his hands, in many images, refuse to be at rest. They gesticulate and splay, as if he were conducting an orchestra that he alone can hear. A cigarette serves as his baton.

If you seek to understand this metamorphosis, “The Selected Letters of John Berryman” can help. What greets us here, as often as not, is a parody of a poet. Watch him fumble with the mechanisms of the everyday, “ghoulishly inefficient about details and tickets and visas and trains and money and hotels.” Chores are as heavy as millstones, to his hypersensitive neck: “Do this, do that, phone these, phone those, repair this, drown that, poison the other.” We start to sniff a blend—peculiar to Berryman, like a special tobacco—of the humbled and the immodest. It drifts about, in aromatic puns: “my work is growing by creeps & grounds.” Though the outer world of politics and civil strife may occasionally intrude, it proves no match for the smoke-filled rooms inside the poet’s head. When nuclear tests are carried out at Bikini Atoll, in 1954, they register only briefly, in a letter to Bellow. “This thermonuclear business wd tip me up all over again if I were in shape to attend to it,” Berryman writes, before moving on to a harrowing digest of his diarrhea.

Above all, this is a book-riddled book. No one but Berryman, it’s fair to say, would write from a hospital in Minneapolis, having been admitted in a state of alcoholic and nervous prostration, to a bookstore in Oxford, asking, “Can you let me know what Elizabethan Bibles you have in stock?” The recklessness with which he abuses his body is paired with an indefatigable and nurselike care for textual minutiae. (“Very very tentatively I suggest that the comma might come out.”) Only on the page can he trust his powers of control, although even those desert him at a deliciously inappropriate moment. Writing to William Shawn at The New Yorker, in 1951, and proposing “a Profile on William Shakespeare,” Berryman begins, “Dear Mr Shahn.” Of all the editors of all the magazines in all the world, he misspells him.

No such Profile appeared; nor, to one’s infinite regret, did the edition of “King Lear” on which Berryman toiled for years. What we do have is his fine essay of 1953, “Shakespeare at Thirty,” which begins, “Suppose with me a time, a place, a man who was waked, risen, washed, dressed, fed, on a day in latter April long ago—about April 22, say, of 1594, a Monday.” Few scholars would have the bravado, or the imaginative dexterity, for such supposings, and it’s a thrill to see a living poet treat a dead one not as a monument but as a partner in crime. “Oh my god! Shakespeare. That multiform & encyclopedic bastard,” Berryman says in a letter of 1952, as if the two of them had just locked horns in a tavern.

Such plunges into the past, with its promise of adventure and refuge, came naturally to Berryman, nowhere more so than in “Homage to Mistress Bradstreet,” which was published in the Partisan Review in 1953 and, three years later, as a book. This was the poem with which he broke through—discovering not just a receptive audience but a voice that, in its heightened lyrical pressure, sounded like his and nobody else’s. The irony is that he did so by assuming the role of a woman: Anne Bradstreet, herself a poet, who emigrated from England to America, in 1630. It is her tough, pious, and hardscrabble history that Berryman chronicles: “Food endless, people few, all to be done. / As pippins roast, the question of the wolves / turns & turns.” In a celebrated scene, the heroine gives birth. Even if you dispute the male ability (or the right) to articulate such an experience, it’s hard not to be swayed by the fervor of dramatic effort:

I can can no longer and it passes the wretched trap whelming and I am me

drencht & powerful, I did it with my body! One proud tug greens Heaven. Marvellous, unforbidding Majesty. Swell, imperious bells. I fly.

What the poem cost its creator, over more than four years, is made plain in the letters, which ring with an exhausted ecstasy. “I feel like weeping all the time,” he tells one friend. “I regard every word in the poem as either a murderer or a lover.” As for Anne, who perished in 1672, “I certainly at some point fell in love with her.” Berryman adds, as if to prove his devotion, “I used three shirts at a time, in relays. I wish I were dead.”

Is this how we like poetry to be brought forth, even now? Though we may never touch the stuff, reading no verse from one year to the next, do we still expect it to be delivered in romantic agony, with attendant birth pangs? (So much for Wallace Stevens, who composed much of his work while gainfully employed, on a handsome salary, as an insurance executive.) Berryman viewed the notion of his being a confessional poet “with rage and contempt,” and rightly so; the label is an insult to his craftsmanship. Nobody pining for mere self-expression, or craving a therapeutic blurt, could lavish on a paramour, as Berryman did, lines as elaborately wrought as these:

Loves are the summer’s. Summer like a bee Sucks out our best, thigh-brushes, and is gone.

You have to reach back to Donne to find so commanding an exercise in the clever-sensual. It comes from “Berryman’s Sonnets,” a sequence of a hundred and fifteen poems, published in 1967. Most of them had been written long before, in 1947, in heat and haste, during an affair with a woman named Chris Haynes. And, in this huge new hoard of letters, how many are addressed to Haynes? Precisely one. Gossip hunters will slouch off in frustration, and good luck to them; on the other hand, anyone who delights in listening to Berryman, and who can’t help wondering how the singer becomes the songs, will find much to treasure here, in these garrulous and pedantic pages. There is hardly a paragraph in which Berryman—poet, pedagogue, boozehound, and symphonic self-destroyer—may not be heard straining toward the condition of music. “I have to make my pleasure out of sound,” he says. The book is full of noises, heartsick with hilarity, and they await their transmutation into verse.

1 note · View note

thebibliomancer · 6 years

Text

Essential Avengers: Avengers #160: ... The Trial!

June, 1977

So here we are once again. Some doofus in a mask who once fell on his own scythe versus the Avengers and also he beats the Avengers. That must sting.

Actually, I was prepared to dislike this issue because Grim Reaper and because the kind of overused trial plot but actually hey, stay tuned. Despite this post lacking any dials whatsoever.

So last time: Wonder Man came back to life and its a mystery and Vision has been feeling the robo-angsts about it. The Avengers recently got their asses kicked by a statue and a dick named Graviton and were played for fool chumps by Attuma and Doom. And also Vision and Wonder Man threw down because punching is easier than talking.

They’ve had a bad time of it, is what I’m basically saying.

This time: some Avengers take off early to avoid the menacing, glinting scythe that somehow got through the Avengers’ lackluster security.

Maybe Gyrich has a point in the future, even if he is an incredible dick about it.

But to be serious: Iron Man is taking Whizzer back to the hospital. I was about to comment on how his plot line just got dropped but Shooter at least remembers to tie it up loosely.

Whizzer complains that they didn’t call him to help with Graviton, Iron Man rebuts that Dude You Have A Heart Condition, thinks himself a secret hypocrite for fighting so much crime with a heart condition.

Yellowjacket and Wasp head back to Pym’s lab because Hank wants to specifically improve Yellowjacket’s powers. Doesn’t even consider improving Wasp’s powers though.

Which is interesting, sorta. I’ve been omitting the letters in the back when they do show up because I’m not sure how interesting ‘hey look at what this fan said decades ago’ is. I’m sure there is interest to be mined there, looking at fan reaction, contrasting it to my own. But I also usually end posts in a natural feeling way and including the letters would interrupt my funky flow. But to get to the point: someone wrote in suggesting that Hank give Wasp a power boost so she can actually start to matter in fights more. So its interesting to see this reflected in-comic with Hank going ‘nope my powers.’

Anyway.

Thor carries Cap back to SHIELD HQ but has some private concerns about how long he’s been absent from the Avengers and how he wishes he could stay longer. A perplexement indeed since it seems like its maybe been a couple days since the new roster. Something is going on here.

Meanwhile, back at the mansion, Beast is in a bit of a mood. He wishes he could have someplace to go that isn’t the mansion.

Everyone else Doesn’t Get It, remarking that the mansion isn’t a bad place to be stuck. Wanda and Vision even have a recently rare cute couple moment about it, Wanda declaring that anyplace is great if she’s with Vision and Vision responding without bemoaning and tearing his shirt over what a fakey fake boy he is.

And Beast remembers his time on the X-Men, a perhaps more successful time.

The plot thread of Beast not knowing his place on the team hasn’t gone away. Although, for a while, his predilection for disguise has.

So he loudly announces he’s going to go clean up the lab because hey if he can’t be a vital part of the team during battles, he may as well be the janitor.

And then he’s instantly blasted through the wall. Everyone’s a critic, I suppose.

The Avengers rush in to the lab and Black Panther switches on the light to reveal...

GRIM REAPER! This isn’t a surprise because he was on the cover and also his scythe was on the splash.

But here’s the interesting thing.

Wonder Man was never told about his brother and his silly hat. But he recognizes Grim Reaper’s voice.

So Grim Reaper gets a dramatic unmasking moment and gets to say “I AM YOUR BROTHER!”

Alas, its three years too early for Wonder Man to appropriately respond ‘THATS NOT TRUE THATS IMPOSSIBLE!’

Also, Eric “Grim Reaper” Williams looks kind of like crap. He has a kind of haggard face and a scar over one eye that is somehow not visible when he has the mask on despite the mask having a little room around the eyes.

Vision and Black Panther recap the previous Grim Reaper events for Wonder Man.

And cute couple moment dashed because when Vision says he’s an artificial boy with Simon’s brain patterns, Wanda tries to tell him that he’s not just a machine and he tells her to shut up.

Rude.

Anyway, Vision logically points out the logic that Grim Reaper should have no beef with them anymore. Look, your dang brother is alive.

Grim Reaper: “I WILL BE THE JUDGE OF THAT!”

Ffs, man.

Beast comes to and has lost nearly all of his humors because he is just sick and tired of being useless on this team when he was the strong dude on the X-Men. So he just rushes straight at Grim Reaper and gets his ass reclobbered. And then its time for fight.

But Wonder Man hesitates. Eric is his asshole brother. He can’t fight him!

Scarlet Witch can though and attacks with the power of explosions. Which Grim Reaper (not joking) scythe helicopters over. He then blasts Scarlet Witch, Black Panther, and Beast with some kind of attack that instantly puts all three in a coma.

Hax. Too op. Plz nerf.

Vision, of course, gets super nettled about Wanda being hurt but Grim Reaper has studied every detail of Vision’s construction and has an attack that puts him down instantly too.

Possibly sonic? There are concentric circles. And sonics have proven effective against Vision before.

And then he turns his scythe on Wonder Man and blasts him, although apologetically.

There’s darkness, as if to represent the passage of time during unconsciousness.

Then the Avengers all wake up at their conference table, with special manacles specially attuned to their molecular makeup and designed to cause ludicrous pain in case of contempt of court.

And we get to see two more of the chair logos!

Scarlet Witch has a stylized W for Witch but I can’t help but notice that it is also her tiara thing upside down and now have to wonder if that was always supposed to be a W. Although upside down would be an M. For mutant? Costume design, you are an enduring mystery.

Vision has his diamond but I’m pretty sure we saw that one before.

And Black Panther has a cute little kitty cat. So he wins.

Anyway, as implied by the cover the theme of Grim Reaper’s emotional turmoil for today is a trial.

He will be playing the prosecuting attorney slash inquisitor. Black Panther will arbitrarily play the defense counsel.

I have to wonder why Black Panther but the other options are Scarlet Witch, who may be slightly biased, and Beast who Grim Reaper doesn’t really know. So I guess that makes sense.

And the name of the game is:

Grim Reaper: “Two men cannot share my brother’s identity! One of them must die!”

So Grim calls Vision to the stand. Which is a chair that Grim Reaper has pulled away from the table to represent a the stand. Because he is committed to this farce.

On the cough cough ‘stand’ Vision recaps his origin: created by Ultron, well actually, adapted from the original robot Human Torch and given the brain-waves of Simon Williams because programming is hard.

So because his personality is derived from Simon Williams’ brain waves, he is in many ways somewhat like the original deal. Although they don’t here explain those similarities.

In Kurt Busiek’s run, where we revisit many of these robo-angst plot points, its revealed that Vision and Simon have very similar tastes in music and literature and women. The last one is the real sticking point.

Anyway, Grim Reaper threatens to destroy Vision if he’s just a mechanical mockery of his brother. Oh and then he reveals that once Vision accepted Grim Reaper’s offer to steal Captain America’s body, which Vision has to confirm that yes he said yes to the offer.

Which is clearly evidence that Vision is Grim’s real brother because he felt a right to a human body even at the expense of a teammate. BUT ALSO: remember how Vision protected Grim Reaper from a deadly Hydra attack? LIKE A TRUE BROTHER???

So is the supposed “Wonder Man” merely an imposter that Vision is trying to shield from Grim’s wrath? YOUR WITNESS BLACK PANTHER.

This line of questioning is dumb because it is finally revealed in this issue who was behind the resurrection of Wonder Man. Spoilers: Its Grim Reaper.

Anyway, Black Panther first objects that any Avenger would act to preserve life, even if that life is Grim Reaper life.

Although, this is not the whole truth. At the time, Vision revealed that because Grim Reaper may be his brother kinda, he felt the need to protect him sorta. It was vague and not entirely logical. Like Vision himself.

Black Panther cross-examines Vision and asks why he agreed to Grim Reaper’s mad body-swapping scheme. And Vision reveals, as the issue at the time revealed, that he was just playing along so Cap could ambush Grim Reaper.

Grim Reaper seems confused by this, almost like he didn’t remember Cap and Vision kicking his ass.

Also, Black Panther burns him almighty.

He also says that Vision won’t fit into the role that Grim Reaper wants to cast him. Vision is his own man, taking his life into his own hands. Why he has even taken a wife.

Which seems an AH HA moment for Grim Reaper because his brother would never marry a mutant! Because Grim Reaper is a bigot in addition to being weirdly fixated on his brother.

Meanwhile, Wonder Man is off to the side trying to ignore the crush he has on Wanda.

I joke, he’s really off to the side flummoxed that his brother is doing all this. But he does have feelings for Wanda at some point. Supposedly he was attracted to her even before he died (when?? when did he ever meet her?) and that formed the basis for Vision’s own interest in her. But that’s a dumb retcon.

Anyway, Grim Reaper calls Wonder Man to the stand/chair.

And Wanda asks Vision what he’s playing at when Grim Reaper may kill him. But Vision says he’s not Simon Williams and if that’s a crime, well he guesses he’ll die. But better he die for not being Simon Williams than Simon Williams suffer a second death for not being Simon Williams.

So now its Wonder Man’s turn to sit in the chair and recap his backstory. Recruited by the Masters of Evil when he was at his lowest point, made swole with ionic power and used as a traitor against the Avengers.

But it wasn’t the Avengers who killed him! To Grim Reaper’s apparent shock. He seems really clueless of a lot of things, actually.

Wonder Man died after turning on Zemo. And seems to think he got blasted for it. But it was really that Zemo didn’t give him the cure. I mean, that was the plot, right?

Then the ‘corpse’ was kept in a special preservative coffin but was stolen (by Grim Reaper). Then ??? and then he was delivered as a zombie (wait we can say that now?) to the Avengers’ front step in a big crate. The Avengers tracked down a voodoo priest called Black Talon and Scarlet Witch kicked his ass but Zombie Wonder Man still walked. And began to feel and think and remember. And by the time the Avengers were fighting Living Laser and the Serpent Crown and Nuklo and all that nonsense, Wonder Man was back to himself again.

Good enough for Grim Reaper! (Redramatically unmasks) The voice and mannerisms are right! This must be the real brother!

OBJECTION says Black Panther

(I knew I kept that for a reason)

Returning from death is impossible! True death is irrevocable!

(Oh Black Panther, how little you know of the comic book world...)

Whatever this Wonder Man is, he is not the same as the man he was before or even ANY man who EVER lived!

And Simon Williams is shocked, shocked, that someone figured it out. He takes off his goggles and reveals that his eyes glow with crimson kirby crackle. He knows he isn’t the same. But he doesn’t know what he has become... and it scares him.

Imagine coming back to life. Years have passed. The world is different. And there’s a feeling deep inside, staring at you in the mirror, that you’re not what you were. The world is not the only thing that has changed. And you wonder (hah!) if you are even human anymore...

There’s a lot of good material you could mine with Wonder Man. I remember it being squandered but maybe I remember wrong.

Grim Reaper is taken aback at Simon’s reveal and it actually feels like a small, human moment. Like maybe there’s a human connection still to be preserved here beyond the hyperbolic dramatics of the Grim Reaper.

But Vision calls Grim Reaper out. If he’s going to kill one of them, just get it over with and also kill him specifically. Because he (the Reaper) is a fool to think that he can ever have his brother back as he was.

Maybe Vision was a fool too because he had once hoped that he was in some way Simon Williams but he is his own unique, beautiful individual! He is the Vision! And he is content with that.

And if Wonder Man has somehow stepped beyond humanity, maybe he and Vision are the true brothers?

NO THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER I LIKE Grim Reaper expresses by torturing his captives.

And with all the Avengers knocked unconscious, Grim Reaper monologues that they would tremble if they knew who provided him the technology to build the manacles. Also now he’s going to execute the android kthx.

And then Wonder Man punches him in the face and it is super satisfying.

Sometimes comics are good.

Wonder Man says that his molecular structure must be different now, since his change. The manacles don’t work right on him.

Grim Reaper: “Simon, you fool! Don’t you realize that what I’ve done... and what I’m doing is for you? Stay back!”

And he blasts at Simon and Simon punches a big piece of machinery at him which Grim Eric shreds with his helicopter scythe.

Back when they were kids, Eric used to beat the stuffing out of Simon all the time. Eric was the big brother and the more athletically inclined to Simon’s quiet bookish type. But things have changed.

Grim Reaper: “Listen to me! I’ve worked long and hard for your sake! Right or wrong, for years I held the Avengers responsible for your death, and sought revenge! I paid the Black Talon a fortune to use his voodoo -- to raise your body and send it among the Avengers to kill them! But for the Scarlet Witch, you yourself would have been the instrument --.”

A lot to unpack here. Grim Reaper basically admits that maybe his revenge was misplaced but eh, sunk cost. Also, that he was the one that resurrected Black Talon but it doesn’t seem he thought he’d get his brother back. He just wanted a Wonder Man zombie (seriously, we can say that now? Its only been a few issues...) to bludgeon the Avengers to death with.

I’m not sure what the actual plan was since the Wonder Man zombie collapsed rather than murder anyone. But maybe that’s the point. Wonder Man had been brought back, not just as a body, and wouldn’t revenge on anyone. That was what derailed the plan.

Grim Reaper blasts Wonder Man with all his remaining power but just shreds his shirt.

Grim Reaper: “Look, I -- I’m trying to tell you how much it means -- to have my real brother back, instead of that android copy! But I had to be sure! I had to test you both!”

With the blade out of power but the whirl engine still whirling, Grim Reaper tries to fend Simon off with the helicoptering. But Simon just marches right into it, the scythe breaking off on his pecs.

And as Grim Reaper stares in disbelief at the stump of his weapon, Wonder Man punches him out. And then deactivates the manacles from the rest of the Avengers.

The Avengers rouse, glad to have survived that nonsense. Scarlet Witch thanks Wonder Man for saving Vision and Vision himself says he is ever in Wonder Man’s debt.

Its Beast that notices that Wonder Man isn’t altogether okay with what he had to do.

But Wonder Man just asks to be left alone for a while.

Because its not Avengers if someone isn’t brooding at the end.

And because in addition to coming back to life having missed several years, feeling like his humanity has slipped him by on his resurrection, Wonder Man had to learn today that his brother, who he already had a contentious relationship with, has become a supervillain who has already done terrible things in Simon’s name. I have to imagine that Simon hasn’t gone looking to reunite with any of his family because he doesn’t know how to explain his death and because he wasn’t sure he was himself anymore. But someone came looking for him and even if it was the brother he didn’t get along with, it was someone from his past reconnecting with him. But the way it seems is that now they’ll forever be at odds. Because having his brother back isn’t enough for Eric. He has to kill the ‘imposter’ and Simon can’t stand for that.

Heavy melodramatic stuff.

...

This issue should have gone before the Graviton arc.

You have all this increased tension from Wonder Man’s resurrection and Vision’s existential crisis, leading Vision to be moody and distant and finally come to blows with Wonder Man.

Then the rest of the issue is some gravity jerk.

It would have required a little rewriting but after Vision and Wonder Man throw down is when Grim Reaper should have struck. Get Black Panther in there somehow or use Iron Man or Captain America in Black Panther’s place.

The Avengers are weak and in turmoil from being just off the Attuma misadventure. From just having their asses kicked on Christmas by a statue. And with tempers at a fraying point, Vision at last lashes out and he and Wonder Man rumble.

And Grim Reaper takes that opportunity to jump in. And enact his trial.

Things play out as they did. Maybe expand into a two parter to give some more time to explore Vision’s discontent and the temptation to be considered the ‘real’ brother even by an ass like Grim Reaper. And then its worth more when, as before, he refuses to play Grim Reaper’s game. He stands up for his own individuality and for Wonder Man’s life. And things play out roughly the same.

With the insinuation that the Statue Knight was Ultron’s work, this makes things flow so much better. Ultron and Grim Reaper are implied and later explicitly stated to be working together.

That’s where he gets all his wonderful toys.

Ultron uses the statue as a distraction to allow Grim Reaper to infiltrate into the mansion and set up his little farce. Which Ultron uses as a distraction from his own plans (as we’ll see soon).

The Graviton story can still happen after this but moving the Grim Reaper stuff forward lets the Vision/Wonder Man thing play out instead of being interrupted by a story that didn’t advance it.

Anyway. Those are my thoughts.

Obviously, I liked this issue more than I thought I would, going in. What with Grim Reaper an all. This is a good Grim Reaper use. And it pays off his previous appearances. The problem is that this then, is the only Grim Reaper we ever get, when I think he kind of ran his course here.

In the future, he will seriously try to put Wonder Man and Vision in a blender to create a one, true brother.

So the true brother schemes should have stopped here. As hilarious as that laconic plot description sounds.

Next time: everyone who ever thought the power of small or ants was worst power I laugh at. Next time, beware the Ant-Man.

Follow @essential-avengers because I have always known ants is best power.

#Avengers #Grim Reaper #the Vision #Wonder Man #Scarlet Witch #Black Panther #Beast #Essential Avengers #Essential marvel liveblogging #villains love putting heroes on trial #i think its a 'how do YOU like it' thing #holidays are super awkward at the Williams residence

18 notes · View notes

friend-clarity · 4 years

Text

Is Sex Binary?

Alex Byrne, Professor of Philosophy, MIT, Nov 1, 2019

The answer offered in a recent New York Times opinion piece is more confusing than enlightening

The answer has been known since the 19th century. As Simone de Beauvoir puts it in The Second Sex (the founding text of modern feminism), the sexes “are basically defined by the gametes they produce.” Specifically, females produce large gametes (reproductive cells), and males produce small ones. (Since there are no species with a third intermediate gamete size, there are only two sexes.¹)

In her New York Times op-ed “Why Sex Is Not Binary,” the biologist and gender studies theorist Anne Fausto-Sterling tries to set the record straight: “Two sexes have never been enough to describe human variety.” According to Fausto-Sterling, it has “long been known” that some people are neither female nor male (or, perhaps, both female and male).

Fausto-Sterling is responding to a leaked draft memo from the Department of Health and Human Services that proposes a legal definition of sex under Title IX “based on immutable biological traits.” The memo appears to be part of a regrettable attempt to remove some legal protections from people who are transgender. Although a transgender person is no less likely to be female or male than someone who is not transgender, activists for transgender rights often cite the alleged fact that “sex is not binary” to support the idea that being transgender is not a mental health condition, but instead is merely “normal biological variation.” That “sex is a spectrum,” or — as Fausto-Sterling wrote in The New York Times 25 years ago — that “there are at least five sexes,” are claims that are pressed into similar service. Fausto-Sterling’s article endorses and reinforces these ideas. But not only are the claimed biological facts far from established, this particular use of biology to guide social and legal issues is completely misguided in the first place. Transgender people, just like anyone else, should be free to live and work without being stigmatized, harassed, or disrespected. Whether sex is binary, a spectrum, or whether there are 42 sexes, makes absolutely no difference.

Let’s start with the biology. Fausto-Sterling’s approach to whether some people are neither female nor male is rather indirect. She explains the psychologist John Money’s many-fold distinction between chromosomal sex, external genital sex, pubertal hormonal sex, and others. She points out that these do not always align. For instance, there are people who are chromosomally male (XY) but whose external genitalia are female. Fausto-Sterling also notes that Money’s “layers of sex” are not themselves binary: there are sex-chromosome combinations other than XX and XY, and similarly for the other layers. But where are the original categories of female and male, supposedly the topic of Fausto-Sterling’s article? They seem to have disappeared, being replaced by chromosomally-female, genitally-female, and so on. Granted, there are some people who have XXY chromosomes, or just a single X, making them neither chromosomally female nor chromosomally male. But the question was not whether chromosomal sex is binary, it was whether sex is binary. That question has been evaded, not answered.

The categories of female and male are in fact implicit in Money’s taxonomy. To be chromosomally female is to have the sex chromosomes typical of (human) females; to be genitally female is to have the genitalia typical of (human) females, and so on. But what is it to be, simply, female or male? Forget Money’s many sex-related categories — what are the sexes? The answer has been known since the 19th century. As Simone de Beauvoir puts it in The Second Sex (the founding text of modern feminism), the sexes “are basically defined by the gametes they produce.” Specifically, females produce large gametes (reproductive cells), and males produce small ones. (Since there are no species with a third intermediate gamete size, there are only two sexes.¹) A glance at the huge variety of females and males across the animal and vegetable kingdoms will confirm that there is nothing else the sexes can be. For instance, the equation female=XX is confused for a fundamental reason having nothing to do with human chromosomal variation: females of numerous species either have different sex chromosomes (as in birds) or else no sex chromosomes at all (as in some reptiles). The XX/XY system is merely the mechanism by which placental mammals like humans typically become female and male; other animals and plants use different means to achieve the same end result. Whenever it is suggested that being female or male is a matter of having certain chromosomes (or primary/secondary sex characteristics), that is a sure sign that the discussion has gone off the rails.

There is a complication. Females and males might not produce gametes for a variety of reasons. A baby boy is male, despite the fact that sperm production is far in his future (or even if he dies in infancy), and a post-menopausal woman does not cease to be female simply because she no longer produces viable eggs. Female worker honeybees are usually incapable of producing eggs because their ovarian development has been inhibited by chemicals secreted by the queen. (In one species of bee, the female workers are all permanently sterile, even in queenless colonies.)

In the light of these examples, it is more accurate (albeit not completely accurate) to say that females are the ones who have advanced some distance down the developmental pathway that results in the production of large gametes — ovarian differentiation has occurred, at least to some extent. Similarly, males are the ones who have advanced some distance down the developmental pathway that results in the production of small gametes. Definitions in biology are never perfectly precise, and these are no exception. Still, they give us some traction in examining whether there are any humans who are neither female nor male. (It is not in dispute that some non-human organisms are neither female nor male, and that some — hermaphrodites — are both.)

Consider, for example, the “intersex” condition Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia — one of many “disorders of sex development” (DSDs). XX individuals with this rare condition can have an enlarged clitoris at birth (sometimes very penis-like), due to high levels of androgen hormones in the womb. They have progressed some considerable way down the developmental pathway that produces eggs (they have the usual ovaries and fallopian tubes), and have not even started down the (male) sperm-producing pathway. They are sometimes assigned male at birth, but are usually raised as girls, and indeed many of them go on to have children. Whether they are raised as girls or boys, the scientific literature correctly classifies them as female. As might expected, there are some other rare cases (arguably 1 in 50,000 births or even rarer) that are hard to decide, but there are no clear and uncontroversial examples of humans who are neither female nor male. (A similar point goes for supposed examples of humans who are both female and male, although here things get more complicated.) The existence of some unclear cases shows that it would be incautious to announce that sex (in humans) is binary. By the same token, it is equally incautious to announce that it isn’t — let alone that this is an established biological fact. And even if some people are outside the binary, they are a miniscule fraction of the population, nothing like the frequently cited 1–2 percent figure, which draws on Fausto-Sterling’s earlier work.²

That sex is not binary is evidently something that many progressives dearly wish to believe, but a philosophically sound case for treating everyone with dignity and respect has absolutely no need of it. People with intersex conditions have historically been subject to ethically dubious genital surgery as children, or deceived about their medical status by (usually well-meaning) doctors. It would be a huge mistake to think that such surgery is unjustified because the patients fall outside the binary, and so should not be surgically fashioned to appear to be within it. The main arguments against surgery (there are risks with little compensating benefit, and patients are too young to consent) have nothing to do with whether the patients are female, male, both, or neither.

Further, the issue of whether sex is binary, although of academic interest, is of no relevance to current debates about transsexuality and the changing models for treating gender dysphoria. To those struggling with gender identity issues, it might seem liberating and uplifting to be told that biological sex in humans is a glorious rainbow, rather than a square conservatively divided into pink and blue halves. But this feel-good approach is little better than deceiving intersex patients: respect for autonomy demands honesty. And finally, if those advocating for transgender people (or anyone else) rest their case on shaky interpretations of biology, this will ultimately only give succor to their enemies.

Notes: ¹In this sense, sex is binary: there are only two sexes. However, the interpretation of “sex is binary” relevant to the present debate is different: everyone is either female or male, and no one is both. ²The source for the 1–2 percent figure is Fausto-Sterling’s co-authored 2000 paper “How Sexually Dimorphic Are We?”. That paper estimated the “frequency of intersex” at 1.7 percent. A neglected response by the philosopher Carrie Hull corrected “numerous errors and omissions” in the data collection and interpretation, bringing the figure down to 0.37 percent. Importantly, that figure is not an estimate of the frequency of “intersex conditions” as usually understood, but rather includes any failure to (in Fausto-Sterling’s words) “conform to a Platonic ideal” of femaleness and maleness. By this over-inclusive criterion, XYY individuals, who are practically indistinguishable from normal XY males, are counted as intersex. The true figure for intersex conditions (understood as those where the phenotype has both female and male elements — a small subset of DSDs) is closer to 0.018 percent, about 100 times lower than the figure supplied by Fausto-Sterling (see Leonard Sax, “How Common Is Intersex? A Response To Anne Fausto‐Sterling”). Incorporating Hull’s corrections drops that percentage to 0.015. The present point is that even people in this 0.015 percent usually fall within the female/male binary, and that no one clearly falls beyond it. (There actually are more plausible candidates for exceptions to the female/male binary than the classic intersex conditions comprising this 0.015 percent, in particular XY gonadal dysgenesis or Swyer Syndrome.)

0 notes

recentanimenews · 5 years

Text

BokuBen – 01 (First Impressions) – Don’t Forget the Frustration

BokuBen or We Never Learn pulls off a fine trick; one so admirable knowing the potential underlying cynicism for its formula doesn’t take away from the enjoyment of the show. First, it draws you in with its catchy, vibrant OP, two girls as lovably drawn and animated as Trigger or Shaft fare, and brings three consummate-professional seiyuu in Shiraishi Haruka (wonderful as Asirpa in Golden Kamuy), Tomita Miyu (excellent as Abyss’ Riku) and Osaka Ryouta (from everything) to the party.

Then, once you’re at that party, you learn that the beauty is more than skin deep, and that the three main characters presented so far are richly detailed and both their dreams and motivations are clearly and strongly defined. More to the point, all three are extremely likable rootable characters, so let’s meet ’em!

Osaka’s Yuiga Nariyuki is your standard hard-working kid with a good heart. We learn his family is poor, his father deceased, and later, that he’s the man of a dilapidated house, desperate to help hold both it and the family within it together. And there’s your motivation for why he’d accept almost any condition in exchange for getting a free ride at the college affiliated with his high school.

That condition involves him having to tutor the two school geniuses, Furuhashi Fumino (Shiraishi), the “Sleeping Beauty of the Literary Forest”, and Ogata Rizu (Tomita), the “Thumbelina Supercomputer.” Those amazing nicknames are incredibly accurate in describing the two girls’ strengths, but fall far short of describing the full measure of their respective characters.

That is because Furuhashi, a genius in liberal arts, wants to go to college for science, while Rizu, a genius in science, wants to go to college for liberal arts. The scenario almost too deliciously perfect, right down to their hair and eye color resembling Eva’s Rei and Asuka.

Yuiga quickly learns that Furuhashi is as hopeless at math as Rizu is hopeless at literature, and that this will be no easy task. But the reward will be getting into college without burdening his family, which makes it worth the challenge.

At first, his frustration with their ineptitude in the fields they wish to pursue, and suggestion that they simply tutor one another, lead the girls to suspect that he’ll abandon them just like all the (numerous!) previous tutors. I mean, he’s saying the same thing they all did: stick with what you know, you’re both geniuses in that! Let your talent take you as far as it can! USE YOUR GIFTS.

But like any gift someone didn’t specifically ask for (nor had the opportunity to do so) if it’s not something they wanted, they should be free to pursue something they do.

The polite, apologetic, self-berating Furuhashi and fiery, direct, and suspicious Rizu may differ in many ways but one way in which they do not is in their steadfast determination not to take the paths of least resistance, nor let a consensus of outside voices they had no control over determine what they should be.

In their haste to take their leave of yet another tutor who doesn’t understand where they’re coming from, the girls leave their practice books behind with Yuiga, and when he finds them packed with notes proving how hard the two of them worked to understand, Yuiga proceeds to understand where they’re coming from, because it’s a place he’s been to too.

Yuiga used to suck in school, and remembered the pain and frustration of simply not understanding something, not matter how hard he tried. He’s able to empathize with them not possibly being happy if they gave up on what they wanted to do simply because what they could do was easy.

So he supplies them with advisory notes and suggests they study in the library together. I loved how he got so into his explanation of how he got them and relates to them, it sounded at first to both of them that he was confessing his love for them at the same time! Thankfully, he’s able to quickly diffuse that misunderstanding and they head to the library.

There, Yuiga learns another layer of difficulty beyond the practical matter of getting these two into the colleges of their choice—the fact that he’s a high school guy, and they’re both insanely cute high school girls. Getting his VIP recommendation and free ride doesn’t just mean making sure they succeed; he has to continue keeping his grades up.

But it’s hard to focus when, for instance, Furuhashi nods off and rests her head on his shoulder, during which he gets a whiff of her hair, or when Rizu draws in so close to show him a problem that her chest brushes against his side. Yuiga’s romantic history isn’t mentioned here (it’s likely he’s devoted all his time to studying and improving his grades), but it’s clear both of those events were probably firsts for him.

Meanwhile, Fusuhashi and Rizu remain charmingly unaware of the effect they’re inadvertently having on Yuiga. I appreciate this distinction: they’re not intentionally flirting with him, nor are they in conscious competition for him. This is all in Yuiga’s head right now. They’re both there to study. So when he starts blushing and breathing heavily, they assume he’s not feeling well due to a fever.

Yuiga’s interactions with Furuhashi and Rizu post-“confession” plumb satisfying new depths in both their character stories, both for Yuiga and me. Those new layers further explain why Furuhashi and Rizu are pursuing fields opposite their strengths, and it isn’t just for the sheer challenge.

Furuhashi wants to pursue a career in astronomy because she loves the stars and wants to have a closer connection to them, especially as one of them might be her late mother’s star. Meanwhile, Rizu’s family owns an udon restaurant, but while on break between deliveries she is playing a card game for 2-10 players…by herself. Yuiga plays her learns she sucks at it, but she still loves board and card games, and wants a career that will help her understand more about the human emotions that blend with the math to make those games special.

In both cases, Yuiga promises both he’ll support them, and again, their conversations take a turn that could be construed as romantic, only this time he isn’t being supportive to them both at the same time, like his “confession,” so each girl has more cover to express their gratitude for his continued support.

The episode closes by putting faces on the family Yuiga wants to protect: his mother, two younger sisters, and younger brother. But he’s no mercenary in this effort; and his family is no longer the one and only reason. He seems genuinely invested in working to help secure Furuhashi and Rizu’s happiness, as someone whose late father urged him to value failure, and the pain and frustration that result form it, as among the most important teachers in life.

When he’s approached by both Furuhashi and Rizu at school in front of his friends, and both of them whisper in his ear not to mention to anyone what they talked about last night, it creates a third layer to Yuiga’s increasingly complicated mission: the social aspect outside the trio’s dynamic. This is high school; rumors will spread and misconceptions will develop. How will the three of them deal? Not to mention there’s a third girl on the horizon: one who may be a genius in swimming.

I’m over 1200 words here, so I should wrap this sucker up—BokuBen had a very strong start, as I’m invested in everyone I’ve met so far. It’s a great-looking show with great-sounding seiyuu and has a very promising premise. If it can maintain the quality of its premiere, I’ll have no problem tuning in.

By: sesameacrylic

#Anime #News #RABUJOI – An Anime Blog

0 notes

nothingman · 7 years

Link

The following is a guest post by Jeff Lockhart.

Two weeks ago, the LA Times ran an Op-Ed by Debra W. Soh on “The Futility of Gender-Neutral Parenting.” The central claim is old and fundamentally conservative: differences between men and women are biological truth, not to be meddled with by free will or society. Sex differences are facts to be accepted, not questioned or altered (two things feminists have always done). The op-ed circulated widely and was picked up by other outlets, including a New York Magazine piece titled “Yes, Biology Helps Explain Why Boys and Girls Play Differently.” Throw out your oatmeal baby room paint and desegregated toy isles.

Soh provides a number of common scientific claims to back this point. She mentions that babies exhibit gender-typical toy preferences at 18 months, before they exhibit awareness of their gender. This sounds like perfect proof: differences before babies are socialized into gender must be biological. Except babies are socialized into gender from birth, as shown in the famous 1975 “Baby X” study, which found adults offered different toys and described babies’ responses to the toys differently depending on whether they were told the child was a boy or girl (regardless of the child’s genitalia).

Soh also mentions the ‘masculine’ behavior of girls with a condition known as CAH. There are many problems with CAH research design as well. Biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling addresses many of them in an endnote that sprawls a stunning five pages in her 2000 book. Soh then cites findings that vervet monkeys, without human socialization, preferred toys appropriate to their sex. With some digging, we can find the original study. When the researchers found that female monkeys spent more time with the cooking pot toy than males, they took it as evidence of a biologically female attraction to toys humans code as feminine—never mind that the monkeys don’t understand cooking or its gendered implications. This choice left multiple scientific readers bewildered. The authors briefly mention a more compelling explanation—female monkeys are known to be more attracted to reddish colors, so perhaps they played more with the two girl toys (the pot and a doll) because they were also the only two red toys. But they do not control for this obvious confounding variable. Discussing the study in her later work, one of the initial authors mentions only the doll, omitting the confounding color variable and the meaningless cooking pot. Few people citing the study mention that the male moneys spent equal time with masculine and feminine toys, either.

In another example, Soh points to a study that correctly identifies 73% of participants’ sex based on brain scans. 73% can sound like a lot, but with two choices, randomly guessing would give us 50% accuracy. While their method is somewhat (23 points) better than guessing, it’s 27 points worse than perfect. That is, a lot of people’s brains do not conform to the model that sexes are binary and different. Perhaps that is why surveys of this literature find “no consistent evidence of brain based sexual dimorphism exists.” Moreover, observing biological difference doesn’t mean biology causes social differences. Gendered social behavior has been shown to change the structure of one’s brain. The same has been shown for hormone levels, even back in 1979. Social factors, then, sometimes cause biological ones.

A Large and Longstanding Body of Research Literature

The LA Times Op-Ed matter-of-factly informs readers that a “large and long-standing body of research literature shows that toy preferences, for example, are innate, not socially constructed or shaped by parental feedback.” This is technically accurate: research to this effect has been prolific and dates back at least several hundred years. But that research has also been heavily critiqued and frequently debunked by scientists over the last 40+ years. Research to the contrary is itself a “large and long-standing body of research literature.” Some prominent authors within STEM fields include Anne Fausto-Sterling, a biologist who has written 5 books and numerous articles on the subject; Ruth Hubbard, the first tenured woman in Harvard’s biology department; Evelyn Fox Keller, a physicist; and Rebecca M. Jordan-Young, a sociomedical scientist. There is even a pop-science summary of this research field by a neuroscientist, Cordelia Fine. By ignoring this entire body of work, which responds at length and with scientific rigor to her specific examples, Soh gives readers the false impression that all research unambiguously shows social resistance to current gender patterns is “futile.”

Then, of course, there is the social science. This is where we get studies like Baby X, Emily Martin’s demonstration of sexist assumptions clouding biological research, Nelly Oudshoorn’s research on the historical construction of “sex hormones,” and Beth B. Hess’ incisive quip that “for two millennia, ‘impartial experts’ have given us such trenchant insights as the fact that women lack sufficient heat to boil the blood and purify the soul, that their heads are too small, their wombs too big, their hormones too debilitating, that they think with their hearts or the wrong side of the brain. The list is never-ending.”

Sociology is also where we find evidence of how sex-stereotyped behaviors are learned, planned, and enforced—none of which would be necessary (or possible) if they were “predetermined characteristics” like Soh suggests. This is a huge area of sociology. Erving Goffman’s 1977 “The Arrangement between the Sexes” is an early classic, but much more empirical work has demonstrated gender socialization since then by Raewyn Connell, Lorena Garcia, Karin Martin, Tay Meadow, CJ Pascoe, Barrie Thorne, and countless others. And then there are the cross-cultural studies showing gendered behavior varies widely across places and historical periods. Margaret Mead’s classic 1949 Male and Female is among the most influential. Personally, I love this post on the pink costumes marketed for boys in the 1955 Sears catalog.

Agendas

What purpose does an Op-Ed like this one serve? Soh insists gender-neutral parenting is futile, and her disdain for it is palpable throughout the article. Soh is so invested in telling readers how (not) to parent (neutrally) that she ignores decades of scientific research showing that there are fatal methodological flaws in the studies of biological causes for gendered behavior. None of these critics say biology is entirely irrelevant—many are themselves career biologists. Even more to the point, she ignores decades of social scientific research demonstrating clearly that social factors do influence gendered behaviors like toy preference and STEM achievement. The data is in: gender socialization is not futile (but looking for evidence of biological sex determinism probably is).

Prescriptive claims based on innate biology present us with a telling paradox. If one really believes, as Soh professes to, that outcomes are biologically determined and socialization is irrelevant, why write an Op-Ed telling us we ought to socialize children into traditional gender roles? Why give any recommendations at all, if our actions have no effect? When the Borg tell us resistance is futile, they are trying to demoralize us into surrendering a fight we may otherwise win, into assimilating with their views even when it is painful or costs us our identities.

When sex difference research is used to make prescriptive claims (such as how to parent), a logical fallacy also takes place. Researchers look for differences between (cisgender) men and women, then build a model of what is masculine and feminine to describe what they see. This is a reasonable step (unless, of course, you consider the long history of research on intersex, transgender, and nonbinary people that complicates “men and women”). However, when someone turns around and says “this girl likes boy toys” or “boys’ rooms should be blue not oatmeal,” they mistake the model’s description of reality for reality itself. If she is playing with a different toy than the model of sex difference predicts, that is an error in the model, not in the girl.

Jeff Lockhart is a PhD student at the University of Michigan.

via scatterplot

#IFTTT #Feedly #Nothingman uses feedly

37 notes · View notes

calaabocatiago · 7 years

Text

My reply to “ELI5: How are transgender individuals different from other dissociative identity disorders?”

I have trans friends and I have read a lot of their activist literature as I am quite involved in social activism myself. I'll just point out my own evolution of mind on the subject and emphasize some small points. I'm not implying OP has any prejudice about trans people, neither am I trying to claim knowledge on the struggle of a group of which I'm not part of. I'm merely describing my own experience. I also apologize as English is not my first language.

First of all, having trans friends was a big turning point. It shifted my mind from "what the is the deal with these people?" to "although clearly they are otherwise very normal folks."

Second of all came the realization that acting against your biological sex is not the same thing as hurting or hating oneself. Other disorders such as anorexia or that one where people make unnecessary surgeries to remove functioning limbs, those are very dark conditions that may completely wreck the person's body and are usually accompanied by a bunch of other disorders or traumas. Trans folk, on the other hand, are usually completely sane and productive otherwise, usually love the non-gender-specific parts of their bodies (and many times even those parts), and most will tell you that they felt that way for as long as they can remember. If anything, I thought at the time, it's much closer to tattoing and body modification than bulimia.

But then I went deeper. As I pondered on the philosophy of it, and as I met not only trans but also non-binary and gender-fluid people, it became undeniable that gender is a social construct. Our biological sexes are indeed facts of nature (like wisdom teeth and the appendix). But everything else related to gender isn't, and there is nothing "blasphemous" about taking control of your gender identity. Men and women aren't "meant" to be or act a certain way as evidenced by our whole history of differing gender roles. That's what made me finally realize that gender is not this sacred untouchable pillar of humanity that most conservative critics make it out to be. That was really the turning point for me and it really made me take trans activism quite seriously and I have been following their fight for rights and visibility much closer since. Because I finally realized that perhaps the most important thing here is what's the big fucking deal, let people be.

Shortly after I had to confront the last cliche argument of the cynical critic. The last attempt at devaluing a point of view: well that's all very grand but it's still post-modern bullshit and the world never needed that shit. And I would perhaps have folded then if it wasn't for the historical knowledge that I had gathered. The average 21st century cis straight citizen that has never met a trans person may think, upon hearing about it, that it's a new thing. A new social problem demanding his attention, his opinion in deciding whether or not it's a good thing. It's simply an issue that "is all over the media right now". However, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Human societies have dealt with transgenders, 3rd genders and gender fluidity since forever. There are all sort of attempts at rationalizing and dealing with this in every kind of worldview.

And in the end my conclusion was, thankfully, unavoidable: There may be a lot to discuss about gender and identity in Science, in Philosophy, in Psychology. But while the experts study and analyze, we five year olds should perhaps focus first on insuring that our non-cis colleagues, neighbors and relatives can live a free, independent, safe life, at least to the same degree that we cis folk do. And that includes not doubting their own knowledge of their souls (or the skeptic's equivalent perception of one).

In my country, most trans folk have little option of work other than prostitution and porn. They are common targets of mockery on police reality TV, and (like in most of modern society) it's considered shameful and ridiculous by the average person to have any relationship with a trans person, let alone an intimate one. The average life span of a trans female here is 30 years, the same as an average male in medieval Europe.

Now THAT is something I believe should be explained to more people, including actual five year olds.

#reddit

1 note · View note

conners-clinic · 5 years

Link

On October 4, 2018, Sharon Goldberg, MD testified before the Michigan House Energy Committee on 5G and Health. Here is the scientific documentation for her testimony.

Sharon Goldberg is an Integrative Internal Medicine Physician. Her background includes fifteen years as an academic Hospital Medicine physician and medical educator responsible for the training of medical students and resident physicians. She was Assistant Professor at New York City’s Mount Sinai Hospital; Albert Einstein College of Medicine and at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. She is board certified in Internal Medicine and Integrative Medicine and has advanced training in Tropical Medicine and Hygiene from the Gorgas Memorial Institute in Lima, Peru. Her clinical and research interests include dietary, lifestyle and environmental modifications in the setting of complex chronic disease. Dr. Goldberg has clinical expertise treating environmental illness, including Microwave Syndrome (Electro-Sensitivity).

The following is an edited (for ease of reading) transcript of Dr Goldberg’s full testimony.

The Dangers of 5G Wireless Technology

Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period. This is no longer a subject for debate. When you look at Pub Med and the peer-reviewed literature and these effects are seen in all lifeforms, plants, animals, insects, microbes. In humans we have clear evidence of cancer. There is no question. We have evidence of DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, which is the precursor of congestive heart failure, neuropsychiatric effects. So 5G is not a conversation about whether or not these biological effects exist. They clearly do. 5G is a conversation about unsustainable healthcare expenditures.

EMF Radiation and Diabetes

Why do I say this? We’ve been sitting on the evidence for EMR and chronic disease for decades. And now we’re seeing all these epidemics appearing. So diabetes is the first epidemic. I think most of you know the statistics, they’re very scary. 1 in 3 American children will become diabetic in their lifetime and if they’re Hispanic females, the number is 1 in 2. So what does this have to do with wireless radiation? Wireless radiation and other electromagnetic fields, such as magnetic fields and dirty electricity, have been clearly associated with elevated blood sugar and diabetes. That is what the Peer-Reviewed Literature says. It is not opinion. The closer you live to a cell tower, the Higher your Blood Glucose. That is based on hemoglobin A1C measurements. So the idea with small cells of putting the cells closer to people’s homes and bedrooms scientifically is very dangerous. And from an economic perspective, it’s dangerous.

And you may not know this, I was shocked to find this out, but the way you create a model of diabetes in rats in the lab is by exposing them to 2.4 gHz. And this is not for long term exposure. I don’t have time to talk about the costs, but the huge problem with diabetes really is chronic kidney disease. End stage renal disease – the worst complication of diabetes – leads to hemodialysis. Hemodialysis is an automatic qualification for Medicare and if you don’t qualify for Medicare, we still have to dialyze the patient, and the state ends up paying in many different instances. So renal failure is 1% of Medicare, but it takes up 7% of all Medicare expenditures. I don’t have time to talk about this anymore, but once again the other epidemics that clearly link from the science with electromagnetic radiation are related to mental health.

Scientific, Peer-Reviews Research on the Dangers of EMF

And this is straight from PubMed (our national library of medicine, where you would go for peer-reviewed literature) and this isn’t my opinion, this is science. So we have three epidemics that clearly they’re essentially one epidemic. We have deterioration of mental health in the United States. And if you look really at the science, what does it show? And these epidemics are suicide epidemic, epidemics in violent crime, so shootings, and the opioid epidemic. This is in the peer-reviewed literature. These are facts. These are things that have just been glossed over by the wireless industry.

We need to examine our epidemics in the context of our EMF exposures. What does that mean? That means that the CDC should be tracking these epidemics. The CDC needs to start measuring how much radiation people are being exposed to before we roll out 5G. There are four kinds of electromagnetic fields that we know are harmful to human health. Radio frequency radiation, magnetic fields, dirty electricity, and electric fields. Our exposure, any given person, and all humans are affected by EMFs, are given exposure, has nothing to do with the research that my colleagues are going to site with the national toxicology program. That is an assessment of the risk of one cell phone in the near field. What is our exposure in a day? It’s not one cell phone, it’s cell phones, it’s multiple wireless networks. It’s smart meters, it’s cell towers, it’s this sandwich and it all adds up. And this is a serious problem for occupational health, public safety and personal safety. And I feel that it’s irresponsible to be even talking about the Internet of Things (IoT) and rolling out a new, untested technology, when we’re not even measuring what are our current exposures from the current networks.

I got interested in electromagnetic fields after my administrator at the University of Miami gave me a new iPhone. I used it for 20 minutes on speaker and my, my finger was burning at the end of the call. That was years ago. I started reading about the science and connecting with other scientists and really my expertise, I’ve taken care of a lot of patients with chronic disease. So when I talk about diabetes and for instance heart failure, that the national toxicology program shows clear evidence of cardiomyopathy in that study. In other words, that’s a precursor to congestive heart failure. This is from the United States renal data system, healthcare expenditures for persons with chronic kidney disease: “Over half of the 2015 medicare spending for beneficiary is age 65 and older was for those who had diagnoses of CKD, diabetes Mellitus or heart failure. All three of these conditions. When you look as an independent scientist (not someone who’s funded by wireless) all of those three conditions are linked.” So diabetes and heart failure are linked with EMF exposures there. It’s very clear.

American Cancer Society and Harmful EMFs

What are we to make of the American Cancer Society (ACS) telling us there’s no evidence of a harmful product? Well, at this point there’s a national and international 5G appeal that thousands of people have signed. The point is, many of these organizations have conflicts of interest. I don’t know who’s on their board who made these decisions. I’ve been reading this literature for years and really I got interested in it because I’ve spent my career taking care of so many patients who are sick in the hospital. And when I found out about the links, I was just shocked. I couldn’t believe it. So I’ve read these articles myself and the experts who don’t work for telecom and who are in their independent research, everyone comes to the same conclusion. We’re not in a place where we should be debating this anymore.

This is exactly what happened with tobacco. It’s the exact same thing. And really right now the only people protecting the only people who are able to protect Americans are our legislators, because we don’t have any relevant, regulatory guidelines to protect human health. The FCC guidelines were developed for short term exposures, 6 minutes, 30 minutes depending on a phone or outdoor exposure and they have absolutely no connection to the biological effects that have been very clearly summarized in the bio initiative. That’s a huge document generated all of the summaries are there. There are very concise summaries and abstracts documenting everything that I’m saying.

In academic medicine we have a name for what’s happening now with 5G. This is called an untested application of a technology that we know is harmful. We know it from the science. In academics, this is called human subjects research. Human subjects research is very tightly regulated. You can’t just roll out some type of a research project on human beings unless A) you have their informed consent, so they understand the risks and benefits, and B) you have the approval. Like someone is actually examining the literature inside and saying, “This research project, we believe that it’s safe. There’s no evidence in the science to indicate that it would not be safe.” We have decades of evidence to show that it is not safe.

The Importance of Evidence-Based Medicine

One of the things that I taught in medical school is evidence based medicine; teaching medical students and residents how to critically evaluate the literature, the science. And one of the first things that you teach residents is that you always have to look at the funding. You can read about it. Marsha Angle, the editor of the New England Journal just wrote a great op Ed in the New York Times about researchers who are funded by private industry. The results of their research are much more likely to support whatever it is that is being funded.

Some people are asking, “What is the amount of EMFs that an individual could be exposed to if these small cells are installed, and what is the prediction of how much EMFs the human body would experience?” The answer is that no one’s measuring, and that is the problem. Your exposure will depend on what you do in a given day. So if one cell phone causes cancer, clear evidence of cancer, DNA damage, heart damage, well what happens if you work at an airport? What happens if you work in a stadium where there are 100,000 people coming to watch a football game and everyone’s using their phone at the same time? The problem is that we have a very, very systematic, clear, empirical way to measure these exposures. And it’s a discipline called building biology.

There are certain situations relevant to public safety where we really do need to be measuring with firefighters, with airline pilots. Because when you activate microwave radiation inside an enclosed metal space, you get amplification, you have increased power density. So think about an airplane, everyone’s with their devices. Every device is emitting radiation and the access point is right next to the cockpit usually. So what does this do to pilots? What does this do to firefighters? We already have a submission to the FCC from Susan Foster about firefighters that were unable to function in the line of duty. This is from 2013, after exposure to a cell tower that was put up near their station and they also have two way communication devices that they wear. So we have to measure these exposures. That is the start. And not go ahead and roll out a whole bunch of Internet of Things with more like more devices that we’re not even measuring what we’re exposed to now.

Toxicology and Health Effects Of Electromagnetism

Paul Heroux is Professor of Toxicology, Electromagnetism and Health at McGill University. Dr. Heroux Directs the McGill Occupational Health Program. He is a toxicologist who holds a PhD in Physics and began his career working for industry studying health effects of electromagnetic fields and radiation. Professor Heroux currently teaches toxicology and is considered an expert in the field of electro biology, having authored several textbooks. He has extensive teaching and research experience with the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation.

“I want to tackle the subject of insurance. You know that neither Lloyd’s of London, nor Swiss Re will underwrite liability policies for electromagnetic radiation because they think the health risk is too great. In other words, they believe that when the lawyers get involved, and I know many of them, the companies who deliver this radiation to the public could be wiped-out… The environment has to be cleaned-up of electromagnetic radiation progressively, not augmented in radiation. Electromagnetic radiation has repeatedly been linked with cancer in animals…”

Listen to his whole testimony below.

via News – – Conners Clinic

#IFTTT #News – – Conners Clinic

0 notes

cristinajourdanqp · 6 years

Text

Omega-3 for Health: What the Latest Research Shows

It’s been a long time since I published the Definitive Guide to Fish Oils.

Oh sure, here and there I’ve cited some research supporting the beneficial effects of fish fat, but it almost goes without saying that omega-3s are important. Everyone knows it. Even the most curmudgeonly, conventional wisdom-spouting, statin script-writing, lifestyle modification-ignoring doc will tell you to take fish oil. And research in the last few years has not only continually confirmed the health advantages but illuminated new applications—and new physiological explanations—for their essential function in the body.

But what are those benefits, exactly? Why should we be eating fatty fish or, barring access to high quality edible marine life, taking fish oil supplements?

A major reason is that fish oil can help us reclaim our ancestral omega-3:omega-6 ratio and thus restore the inflammatory backdrop of the human body.

Polyunsaturated fats convert to eicosanoids in the body. Both omega-6 and omega-3-derived eicosanoids are important signaling molecules, but each has different effects, both figuring prominently in the body’s response to inflammation. Omega-6 eicosanoids are generally pro-inflammatory, while omega-3 eicosanoids are anti-inflammatory. Omega-3-derived eicosanoids (the type we get from taking fish oil or eating fatty fish) actually reduce inflammation; in an unbalanced diet heavy in vegetable oils, the omega-6 eicosanoids far outnumber the omega-3s and contribute to a lot more inflammation.

The best available evidence points to ancient humans having an omega-3:omega-6 ratio of around 1 to 1. A typical ratio these days is 1 to 16!

As most diseases and health conditions have an inflammatory component, such lopsided ratios can predispose us to any number of health problems. Conversely, correcting those ratios with smart supplementation of fish oil has the potential to correct or prevent those health problems.

Let’s look at some of them and what the most recent research tells us.

How Omega-3s Benefit Health Arthritis

Arthritis is an inflammatory disease, whether we’re talking autoimmune arthritis or wear-and-tear arthritis.

The potential mechanisms are there. In vitro studies using isolated joint tissue show that both DHA and EPA increase joint lubrication. Studies in people show that fish oil reduces inflammatory markers and may even stop the progression of inflammation into inflammatory arthritis.

In a recent study out of Thailand, knee arthritis patients who took fish oil improved their walking speed. “Everyone felt good and happy with the fish oil.” In psoriatic arthritis, fish oil reduced inflammatory markers and lowered patients’ reliance on pain meds.

Fish oil also helps reduce the symptoms of autoimmune rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In one paper, fish oil supplements had additive effects on top of RA drugs. 3-6 grams appears to be an effective dose range. If that sounds high, it is—but you need that much to quell the exaggerated inflammatory responses of RA.

Depression

Depression is another one of those conditions that we don’t often think of as an inflammatory disease, but it is. The evidence is considerable. Vets with the most severe depression also have the highest levels of inflammatory markers. Among Type 2 diabetes, depression and inflammation go hand in hand, with the latter appearing to play a causative role in the former.

There’s considerable evidence that the causation goes both ways: depression can increase inflammation, and inflammation can increase depression. Thus, treating one may treat the other. Since omega-3s are potent and broad-reaching anti-inflammatories, could fish oil treat depression?

Yes.

Fish oil has proven effective with EPA having a greater effect than DHA. It’s even effective in patients with and without an official diagnosis of major depressive disorder. It’s effective in type 2 diabetics with depression.

Stress Reactivity

The stress response is an inflammatory one. A healthy omega-3:omega-6 ratio—the foundation of our inflammatory response system—should produce a healthy stress response. Does it?

In response to mental stress, fish oil promotes a healthy, less reactive neurovascular response. It lowers resting heart rate, a good indicator of general stress resilience. When taken post-trauma, it even reduces psychophysiological symptoms (like pounding heart) in car accident survivors. And in alcoholics, fish oil reduces both perceived (subjective) stress and basal cortisol (objective).

General Inflammatory and Immune Responses

Name a disease and “elevated inflammation” or “exaggerated immune response” is probably part of the pathology. What effect does fish oil have on some of these inflammatory pathologies?

Reduced inflammatory markers (HS-CRP) in Type 2 diabetes patients.

Improved inflammatory markers in colorectal cancer, including HS-CRP.

Reduced airway inflammation in asthma patients.

Pre-op fish oil improved post-op inflammatory and immune markers in cancer surgery patients.

Reduced inflammatory marker IL-10 in chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy, a serious heart condition.

Reduced inflammatory gene expression in humans.

I could go on and on. And these are just studies done in the last year or two.

Fish Oil and Cardiovascular Disease

Not everything is so cut and dry. When it comes to certain conditions, like cardiovascular disease, the fish oil literature is confusing. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it doesn’t. What are we to make of it?

One thing that is unequivocal is that a high omega-3 index—the proportion of omega-3 fatty acids in the red blood cell membrane—is protective against cardiovascular disease (see the chart; as omega-6 content goes up, so does cardiovascular mortality). So the question isn’t if long chain fatty acids from fish oil are helpful. It’s: Are those fatty acids reaching your red blood cell membranes and being incorporated?

How To Improve Bioavailability

Several factors affect whether fish oil will increase omega-3 index and thus have the effects we’re looking for:

Omega-6 fats and omega-3 fats compete for space in the red blood cell membranes. If omega-6 intake is too high, fewer omega-3s will make it into the membranes, thereby inhibiting or even abolishing the positive effects of fish oil.

If omega-3 index is low, we’ll see effects. If it’s high enough, further fish oil has no additive effect. We see this in studies such as this one, where only older adults with a low omega-3 index experienced cognitive benefits from omega-3 supplementation. In another study of older adults and cognition that didn’t control for omega-3 index, they found no benefit.

Or in this study, where fish oil had benefits in congestive heart failure patients because they had low baseline levels of omega-3.

Or this study, where autistic patients—who tend to have lower omega-3 statuses than the general population—improved some behavioral measures after taking fish oil.

To take advantage of the full effects of fish oil, however, one must also limit the amount of omega-6 fats they eat. In one study, taking fish oil with saturated fat increased incorporation of omega-3s into red blood cell membranes, while taking it with omega-6 prevented omega-3 incorporation. The best way to do it is to eliminate seed oils—the most concentrated source of omega-6 fatty acids in the modern diet. If you don’t limit seed oils and other dense sources of omega-6s, you’ll have to consume extremely high doses of fish oil to make a dent in your inflammatory status.

Making It Easier To Get Your Omega-3s…

Thanks for reading today, folks. I take this information very personally in my life and business. To that end, this week I just released a new formula of Primal Omega-3s that enhances bioavailability and adheres to stricter environmental sustainability standards—all in a smaller capsule. The idea was to optimize benefits and maximize ease. And right now I’m also offering a deal to make this level of quality more affordable….

I’m kicking off the new formula with a BOGO deal. Buy one new Primal Omegas, get the second bottle free now through 8/10/18 at midnight PDT. Just add two Primal Omegas to your cart and use code NEWOMEGAS at checkout. Limit 1 per customer. One-time purchase only.

Thanks again, everybody. Have a great end to the week.

0 notes

watsonrodriquezie · 6 years

Text

Omega-3 for Health: What the Latest Research Shows

It’s been a long time since I published the Definitive Guide to Fish Oils.

But what are those benefits, exactly? Why should we be eating fatty fish or, barring access to high quality edible marine life, taking fish oil supplements?

A major reason is that fish oil can help us reclaim our ancestral omega-3:omega-6 ratio and thus restore the inflammatory backdrop of the human body.

The best available evidence points to ancient humans having an omega-3:omega-6 ratio of around 1 to 1. A typical ratio these days is 1 to 16!

Let’s look at some of them and what the most recent research tells us.

How Omega-3s Benefit Health Arthritis

Arthritis is an inflammatory disease, whether we’re talking autoimmune arthritis or wear-and-tear arthritis.

Depression

Yes.

Stress Reactivity

The stress response is an inflammatory one. A healthy omega-3:omega-6 ratio—the foundation of our inflammatory response system—should produce a healthy stress response. Does it?

General Inflammatory and Immune Responses

Name a disease and “elevated inflammation” or “exaggerated immune response” is probably part of the pathology. What effect does fish oil have on some of these inflammatory pathologies?

Reduced inflammatory markers (HS-CRP) in Type 2 diabetes patients.

Improved inflammatory markers in colorectal cancer, including HS-CRP.

Reduced airway inflammation in asthma patients.

Pre-op fish oil improved post-op inflammatory and immune markers in cancer surgery patients.

Reduced inflammatory marker IL-10 in chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy, a serious heart condition.

Reduced inflammatory gene expression in humans.

I could go on and on. And these are just studies done in the last year or two.

Fish Oil and Cardiovascular Disease

How To Improve Bioavailability

Several factors affect whether fish oil will increase omega-3 index and thus have the effects we’re looking for:

Or in this study, where fish oil had benefits in congestive heart failure patients because they had low baseline levels of omega-3.

Or this study, where autistic patients—who tend to have lower omega-3 statuses than the general population—improved some behavioral measures after taking fish oil.

Making It Easier To Get Your Omega-3s…

Thanks again, everybody. Have a great end to the week.

0 notes

cynthiamwashington · 6 years

Text

Omega-3 for Health: What the Latest Research Shows

It’s been a long time since I published the Definitive Guide to Fish Oils.

But what are those benefits, exactly? Why should we be eating fatty fish or, barring access to high quality edible marine life, taking fish oil supplements?

A major reason is that fish oil can help us reclaim our ancestral omega-3:omega-6 ratio and thus restore the inflammatory backdrop of the human body.

The best available evidence points to ancient humans having an omega-3:omega-6 ratio of around 1 to 1. A typical ratio these days is 1 to 16!

Let’s look at some of them and what the most recent research tells us.

How Omega-3s Benefit Health

Arthritis

Arthritis is an inflammatory disease, whether we’re talking autoimmune arthritis or wear-and-tear arthritis.

Depression

Yes.

Stress Reactivity

The stress response is an inflammatory one. A healthy omega-3:omega-6 ratio—the foundation of our inflammatory response system—should produce a healthy stress response. Does it?

General Inflammatory and Immune Responses

Name a disease and “elevated inflammation” or “exaggerated immune response” is probably part of the pathology. What effect does fish oil have on some of these inflammatory pathologies?

Reduced inflammatory markers (HS-CRP) in Type 2 diabetes patients.

Improved inflammatory markers in colorectal cancer, including HS-CRP.

Reduced airway inflammation in asthma patients.

Pre-op fish oil improved post-op inflammatory and immune markers in cancer surgery patients.

Reduced inflammatory marker IL-10 in chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy, a serious heart condition.

Reduced inflammatory gene expression in humans.

I could go on and on. And these are just studies done in the last year or two.

Fish Oil and Cardiovascular Disease

How To Improve Bioavailability

Several factors affect whether fish oil will increase omega-3 index and thus have the effects we’re looking for:

Or in this study, where fish oil had benefits in congestive heart failure patients because they had low baseline levels of omega-3.

Or this study, where autistic patients—who tend to have lower omega-3 statuses than the general population—improved some behavioral measures after taking fish oil.

Making It Easier To Get Your Omega-3s…

Thanks again, everybody. Have a great end to the week.

The post Omega-3 for Health: What the Latest Research Shows appeared first on Mark's Daily Apple.

Article source here:Marks’s Daily Apple

0 notes

sherristockman · 6 years

Link

Lavender Aromatherapy Can Ease Pre-Op Anxiety Dr. Mercola By Dr. Mercola Many people experience fear and anxiety prior to medical procedures like surgery. This anxiety, in turn, may lead to increased use of painkillers and anesthetics, prolonged hospital stays and even slower wound healing and worsened ability to fight infection. Risky opioids and sedatives are sometimes given to quell patients’ nerves, but recent research suggests aromatherapy may be a far safer alternative.1 In fact, aromatherapy, which involves using essential oils for health and well-being, has the potential to benefit numerous aspects of your life, even if you don’t have any medical procedures in the pipeline. Lavender Aromatherapy May Calm Your Nerves Whether you’re nervous about upcoming surgery or due to something entirely unrelated, like a public speaking event or an exam, aromatherapy is a simple, DIY tool you can use to help calm your nerves. In the featured study, 100 patients admitted to a medical center for ambulatory surgery were given either lavender aromatherapy (inhaled) or standard nursing care (the control group) while in the preoperative waiting room. Their levels of anxiety were recorded upon arrival to the waiting area and again upon departure. Those who received the aromatherapy had a greater reduction in anxiety compared to the control group, with researchers noting:2 “Aromatherapy may offer a simple, low-risk, and cost-effective method of reducing preoperative anxiety … Given the adverse effects of preoperative anxiety and the simplicity of aromatherapy, health care providers should consider the use of preoperative lavender aromatherapy in the ambulatory surgery setting, in which a short preoperative waiting time necessitates a convenient method of anxiety reduction.” It’s far from the first time that lavender aromatherapy has been found useful for anxiety relief. A Korean study also found that lavender reduced both insomnia and depression in female college students3 while research published in Phytomedicine found that an orally administered lavender oil preparation was as effective as the drug Lorazepam for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder.4 A paper published in the journal Evidenced-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine also detailed the many studies showing the potential for lavender oil to offer calming effects.5 “Several animal and human investigations suggest anxiolytic [anxiety reducing], mood stabilizer, sedative, analgesic and anticonvulsive and neuroprotective properties for lavender,” the researchers explained. Among them was a study showing orally administered lavender oil is effective in the treatment of subsyndromal (or preclinical) anxiety disorder, improving sleep quality and duration along with general mental and physical health, without causing any unwanted sedative or other side effects.6 Further, in a study comparing lavender oil with sweet almond oil, the lavender oil caused significant decreases in blood pressure, heart rate and skin temperature which, according to researchers, “indicated a decrease of autonomic arousal.” The lavender oil group also said they felt more active, fresher and relaxed after inhaling lavender oil than those in the almond oil group.7 Other Essential Oils for Anxiety Many ancient cultures, including the Chinese, Indians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans, used essential oils in cosmetics, perfumes and drugs for purposes ranging from spiritual to therapeutic.8 In the modern day, aromatherapy is used in health care settings, health spas and homes, both by professional aromatherapists and amateurs, while accumulating research backs up its many potential uses and benefits. Aside from lavender, essential oils with strong anxiety-relieving potential include orange, sandalwood, rose, bergamot, clary sage and roman chamomile,9 while other research has concluded the essential oil of jasmine can also uplift mood and counteract symptoms of depression.10 Further, research shows: A systematic review of 16 randomized controlled trials examining the anxiety-inhibiting effects of aromatherapy among people with anxiety symptoms showed that most of the studies indicated positive effects to quell anxiety (and no adverse events were reported).11 People exposed to bergamot essential oil aromatherapy prior to surgery had a greater reduction in preoperative anxiety than those in control groups.12 Sweet orange oil has been found to have anxiety-inhibiting effects in humans, supporting its common use as a tranquilizer by aromatherapists.13 Ambient odors of orange and lavender reduced anxiety and improved mood in patients waiting for dental treatment.14 Compared to the controls, women who were exposed to orange odor in a dental office had a lower level of anxiety, a more positive mood and a higher level of calmness. Researchers concluded, "exposure to ambient odor of orange has a relaxant effect."15 Even the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) PDQ online database, which provides “evidence-based information summaries” for health professionals, acknowledges the potential for aromatherapy and essential oils to provide mental and emotional support:16 “A large body of literature has been published on the effects of odors on the human brain and emotions. Some studies have tested the effects of essential oils on mood, alertness, and mental stress in healthy subjects … Such studies have consistently shown that odors can produce specific effects on human neuropsychological and autonomic function and that odors can influence mood, perceived health, and arousal. These studies suggest that odors may have therapeutic applications in the context of stressful and adverse psychological conditions.” Each Essential Oil Serves a Multitude of Purposes Most essential oils have a multitude of benefits, which is to say that lavender oil or sweet orange, for instance, aren’t only useful for anxiety; they can be used for multiple purposes. For example, in a study on patients undergoing open heart surgery, a cotton swab containing lavender essential oil was placed in the patients’ oxygen mask for 10 minutes. The aromatherapy led to significant reductions in blood pressure and heart rate, with researchers concluding it could be “used as an independent nursing intervention in stabilizing mentioned vital signs.”17 Lavender aromatherapy has also been found to reduce pain from menstrual cramps18 and, when diffused twice daily in an adult facility for people with dementia, reduce the frequency of agitation in elderly patients.19 Choosing the right essential oil for you, for any given purpose, may therefore require some trial-and-error or, preferably, direction from a professional aromatherapist. Take lemon essential oil, for instance. When inhaled, it’s said to improve mood, but you might want to avoid doing this near bedtime, as lemon oil inhalation has been found to shorten sleeping time in animal studies.20 The latter could be a benefit in the morning or whenever you need to stay awake, of course, which is why it’s so important to do some research on an essential oil’s possible effects before using it for one purpose or another. Neroli oil is another example. While research suggests it may help reduce stress in post-menopausal women, it may also relieve menopausal symptoms, increase sexual desire and reduce blood pressure at the same time.21 To put it another way, the reason each essential oil has so many different effects is due to the wide variances in plant chemicals. NCI’s PDQ online database explains:22 “Essential oils are made up of a large array of chemical components that consist of the secondary metabolites found in various plant materials. The major chemical components of essential oils include terpenes, esters, aldehydes, ketones, alcohols, phenols, and oxides, which are volatile and may produce characteristic odors. Different types of oils contain varying amounts of each of these compounds, which are said to give each oil its particular fragrance and therapeutic characteristics. Different varieties of the same species may have different chemotypes (different chemical composition of the same plant species as a result of different harvesting methods or locations) and thus different types of effects.” How to Harness the Power of Essential Oils Many people dip their toes into the field of aromatherapy by choosing a few essential oils with scents that appeal to them. You can experiment by diffusing the oils in your home or adding a couple drops to a natural massage oil. Some of the most common ways to use essential oils include: Massaging them (blended with a carrier oil) into your skin Adding them to bathwater Using them in a hot compress Heating them in a diffuser Rubbing a drop onto pulse points Essential oils can also be added to body lotions, shampoos, homemade cleaning supplies and even wound dressings. By combining different combinations of essential oils, you can create a seemingly endless number of blends with a similarly wide range of uses. For more information on the properties of individual essential oils, be sure to check out our Ultimate Guide to Herbal Oils. EFT Is Another Natural Option for Anxiety Relief Getting back to anxiety, if you’re anxious about an upcoming medical procedure, the Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) is a tool you should know about. EFT, which involves stimulating different energy meridian points in your body by tapping them with your fingertips while simultaneously using custom-made verbal affirmations, significantly increases positive emotions, such as hope and enjoyment, and decreases negative emotional states, including anxiety. It is particularly powerful for treating stress and anxiety because it specifically targets your amygdala and hippocampus, which are the parts of your brain that help you decide whether or not something is a threat.23 EFT has also been shown to lower cortisol levels, which are elevated when you're stressed or anxious, while improving symptoms of psychological distress, including anxiety and depression.24 Like aromatherapy, EFT is a tool you can do yourself as well as with the guidance of a qualified practitioner. You may find that keeping both of these natural strategies — aromatherapy and EFT — at the ready provides convenient anxiety relief during the times when you need it most.

#VitalityPath

0 notes

katebushwick · 7 years

Text

Another dimension of Black women's culture that has generated considerable interest among Black feminists is the role of creative expression in shaping and sustaining Black wo- men's self-definitions and self-valuations. In addition to documenting Black women's achievements as writers, dancers, musicians, artists, and actresses, the emerging literature also investigates why creative expression has been such an important element of Black women's culture.'" Alice Walker's (1974) classic essay, "In Search of Our Mothers' Gardens," explains the necessity of Black women's creativity, even if in very limited spheres, in resisting objectifi- cation and asserting Black women's subjectivity as fully human beings. Illustrating Walker's thesis, Willie Mae Ford Smith, a prominent gospel singer featured in the 1984 documentary, "Say Amen Somebody," describes what singing means to her. She notes, "it's just a feeling within. You can't help yourself. . . . I feel like I can fly away. I forget I'm in the world sometimes. I just want to take off." For Mother Smith, her creativity is a sphere of freedom, one that helps her cope with and transcend daily life. This third key theme in Black feminist thought-the focus on Black women's culture-is significant for three reasons. First, the data from Black women's culture suggest that the rela- tionship between oppressed people's consciousness of oppression and the actions they take in dealing with oppressive structures may be far more complex than that suggested by existing social theory. Conventional social science continues to assume a fit between consciousness and activity; hence, accurate measures of human behavior are thought to produce accurate portraits of human consciousness of self and social structure (Westkott, 1979). In contrast, Black women's experiences suggest that Black women may overtly conform to the societal roles laid out for them, yet covertly oppose these roles in numerous spheres, an opposition shaped by the consciousness of being on the bottom. Black women's activities in families, churches, community institutions, and creative expression may represent more than an effort to mitigate pressures stemming from oppression. Rather, the Black female ideological frame of reference that Black women acquire through sisterhood, motherhood, and creative expres- sion may serve the added purpose of shaping a Black female consciousness about the work- ings of oppression. Moreover, this consciousness is shaped not only through abstract, rational reflection, but also is developed through concrete rational action. For example, while Black mothers may develop consciousness through talking with and listening to their children, they may also shape consciousness by how they live their lives, the actions they take on behalf of their children. That these activities have been obscured from traditional social scientists should come as no surprise. Oppressed peoples may maintain hidden consciousness and may not reveal their true selves for reasons of self-protection." A second reason that the focus on Black women's culture is significant is that it points to the problematic nature of existing conceptualizations of the term "activism." While Black women's reality cannot be understood without attention to the interlocking structures of op- pression that limit Black women's lives, Afro-American women's experiences suggest that pos- sibilities for activism exist even within such multiple structures of domination. Such activism can take several forms. For Black women under extremely harsh conditions, the private deci- sion to reject external definitions of Afro-American womanhood may itself be a form of activism

If Black women find themselves in settings where total conformity is expected, and where traditional forms of activism such as voting, participating in collective movements, and officeholding are impossible, then the individual women who in their consciousness choose to be self-defined and self-evaluating are, in fact, activists. They are retaining a grip over their definition as subjects, as full humans, and rejecting definitions of themselves as the objectified "other." For example, while Black slave women were forced to conform to the specific op- pression facing them, they may have had very different assessments of themselves and slav- ery than did the slaveowners. In this sense, consciousness can be viewed as one potential sphere of freedom, one that may exist simultaneously with unfree, allegedly conforming be- havior (Westkott, 1979). Moreover, if Black women simultaneously use all resources available to them-their roles as mothers, their participation in churches, their support of one another in Black female networks, their creative expression-to be self-defined and self-valuating and to encourage others to reject objectification, then Black women's everyday behavior itself is a form of activism. People who view themselves as fully human, as subjects, become activists, no matter how limited the sphere of their activism may be. By returning subjectivity to Black women, Black feminists return activism as well. A third reason that the focus on Black women's culture is significant is that an analytical model exploring the relationship between oppression, consciousness, and activism is implicit in the way Black feminists have studied Black women's culture. With the exception of Dill (1983), few scholars have deliberately set out to develop such a model. However, the type of work done suggests that an implicit model paralleling that proposed by Mullings (1986a) has influenced Black feminist research. Several features pervade emerging Black feminist approaches. First, researchers stress the interdependent relationship between the interlocking oppression that has shaped Black wo- men's choices and Black women's actions in the context of those choices. Black feminist re- searchers rarely describe Black women's behavior without attention to the opportunity structures shaping their subjects' lives (Higginbotham, 1985; Ladner, 1971; Myers, 1980). Sec- ond, the question of whether oppressive structures and limited choices stimulate Black wo- men's behavior characterized by apathy and alienation, or behavior demonstrating subjectivity and activism is seen as ultimately dependent on Black women's perceptions of their choices. In other words, Black women's consciousness-their analytical, emotional, and ethical perspective of themselves and their place in society-becomes a critical part of the relationship between the working of oppression and Black women's actions. Finally, this rela- tionship between oppression, consciousness, and action can be seen as a dialectical one. In this model, oppressive structures create patterns of choices which are perceived in varying ways by Black women. Depending on their consciousness of themselves and their relation- ship to these choices, Black women may or may not develop Black-female spheres of influ- ence where they develop and validate what will be appropriate, Black-female sanctioned responses to oppression. Black women's activism in constructing Black-female spheres of in- fluence may, in turn, affect their perceptions of the political and economic choices offered to them by oppressive structures, influence actions actually taken, and ultimately, alter the na- ture of oppression they experience. The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought Taken together, the three key themes in Black feminist thought-the meaning of self- definition and self-valuation, the interlocking nature of oppression, and the importance of redefining culture-have made significant contributions to the task of clarifying a Black wo- men's standpoint of and for Black women. While this accomplishment is important in and of itself, Black feminist thought has potential contributions to make to the diverse disciplines housing its practitioners.

The sociological significance of Black feminist thought lies in two areas. First, the content of Black women's ideas has been influenced by and contributes to on-going dialogues in a variety of sociological specialties. While this area merits attention, it is not my primary con- cern in this section. Instead, I investigate a second area of sociological significance: the pro- cess by which these specific ideas were produced by this specific group of individuals. In other words, I examine the influence of Black women's outsider within status in academia on the actual thought produced. Thus far, I have proceeded on the assumption that it is impossi- ble to separate the structure and thematic content of thought. In this section, I spell out exactly what form the relationship between the three key themes in Black feminist thought and Black women's outsider within status might take for women scholars generally, with special attention to Black female sociologists. First, I briefly summarize the role sociological paradigms play in shaping the facts and theories used by sociologists. Second, I explain how Black women's outsider within status might encourage Black women to have a distinctive standpoint vis-a-vis sociology's paradig- matic facts and theories. I argue that the thematic content of Black feminist thought de- scribed above represents elements of just such a standpoint and give examples of how the combination of sociology's paradigms and Black women's outsider within status as sociologists directed their attention to specific areas of sociological inquiry. Two Elements of Sociological Paradigms Kuhn defines a paradigm as the "entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given community" (1962:175). As such, a paradigm consists of two fundamental elements: the thought itself and its producers and practitioners.'6 In this sense, the discipline of sociology is itself a paradigm-it consists of a system of knowledge shared by sociologists-and simultaneously consists of a plurality of paradigms (e.g., function- alism, Marxist sociology, feminist sociology, existential sociology), each produced by its own practitioners. Two dimensions of thought itself are of special interest to this discussion. First, systems of knowledge are never complete. Rather, they represent guidelines for "thinking as usual." Kuhn (1962) refers to these guidelines as "maps," while Schutz (1944) describes them as "reci- pes." As Schutz points out, while "thinking as usual" is actually only partially organized and partially clear, and may contain contradictions, to its practitioners it provides sufficient coher- ence, clarity, and consistency. Second, while thought itself contains diverse elements, I will focus mainly on the important fact/theory relationship. As Kuhn (1962) suggests, facts or observations become meaningful in the context of theories or interpretations of those observa- tions. Conversely, theories "fit the facts" by transforming previously accessible observations into facts. According to Mulkay, "observation is not separate from interpretation; rather these are two facets of a single process" (1979:49). Several dimensions of the second element of sociological paradigms-the community formed by a paradigm's practitioners-are of special interest to this discussion. First, group insiders have similar worldviews, aquired through similar educational and professional train- ing, that separate them from everyone else. Insider worldviews may be especially alike if group members have similar social class, gender, and racial backgrounds. Schutz describes the insider worldview as the "cultural pattern of group life"-namely, all the values and be- haviors which characterize the social group at a given moment in its history. In brief, insiders

have undergone similar experiences, possess a common history, and share taken-for-granted knowledge that characterizes "thinking as usual." A second dimension of the community of practitioners involves the process of becoming an insider. How does one know when an individual is really an insider and not an outsider in disguise? Merton suggests that socialization into the life of a group is a lengthy process of being immersed in group life, because only then can "one understand the fine-grained mean- ings of behavior, feeling, and values . . and decipher the unwritten grammar of conduct and nuances of cultural idiom" (1972:15). The process is analogous to immersion in a foreign cul- ture in order to learn its ways and its language (Merton, 1972; Schutz, 1944). One becomes an insider by translating a theory or worldview into one's own language until, one day, the individual converts to thinking and acting according to that worldview. A final dimension of the community of practitioners concerns the process of remaining an insider. A sociologist typically does this by furthering the discipline in ways described as appropriate by sociology generally, and by areas of specialization particularly. Normal foci for scientific sociological investigation include: (1) determining significant facts; (2) matching facts with existing theoretical interpretations to "test" the paradigm's ability to predict facts; and (3) resolving ambiguities in the paradigm itself by articulating and clarifying theory (Kuhn, 1962).

Black Women and the Outsider Within Status Black women may encounter much less of a fit between their personal and cultural ex- periences and both elements of sociological paradigms than that facing other sociologists. On the one hand, Black women who undergo sociology's lengthy socialization process, who im- merse themselves in the cultural pattern of sociology's group life, certainly wish to acquire the insider skills of thinking in and acting according to a sociological worldview. But on the other hand, Black women's experienced realities, both prior to contact and after initiation, may provide them with "special perspectives and insights . . . available to that category of outsid- ers who have been systematically frustrated by the social system" (Merton, 1972:29). In brief, their outsider allegiances may militate against their choosing full insider status, and they may be more apt to remain outsiders within."7 In essence, to become sociological insiders, Black women must assimilate a standpoint that is quite different than their own. White males have long been the dominant group in sociology, and the sociological worldview understandably reflects the concerns of this group of practitioners. As Merton observes, "white male insiderism in American sociology during the past generations has largely been of the tacit or de facto . . variety. It has simply taken the form of patterned expectations about the appropriate . . . problems for investigation" (1972:12). In contrast, a good deal of the Black female experience has been spent coping with, avoiding, subverting, and challenging the workings of this same white male insiderism. It should come as no surprise that Black women's efforts in dealing with the effects of interlock- ing systems of oppression might produce a standpoint quite distinct from, and in many ways opposed to, that of white male insiders. Seen from this perspective, Black women's socialization into sociology represents a more intense case of the normal challenges facing sociology graduate students and junior profes- sionals in the discipline. Black women become, to use Simmel's (1921) and Schutz's terminol- ogy, penultimate "strangers." The stranger . .. does not share the basic assumptions of the group. He becomes essentially the man

who has to place in question nearly everything that seems to be unquestionable to the members of the approached group. ... To him the cultural patterns of the approached group do not have the authority of a tested system of recipes . . . because he does not partake in the vivid historical tradi- tion by which it has been formed (Schutz, 1944:502). Like everyone else, Black women may see sociological "thinking as usual" as partially organ- ized, partially clear, and contradictory, and may question these existing recipes. However, for them, this questioning process may be more acute, for the material that they encounter- white male insider-influenced observations and interpretations about human society-places white male subjectivity at the center of analysis and assigns Afro-American womanhood a position on the margins. In spite of a lengthy socialization process, it may also be more difficult for Afro-American women to experience conversion and begin totally to think in and act according to a sociologi- cal worldview. Indeed, since past generations of white male insiderism has shaped a sociolog- ical worldview reflecting this group's concerns, it may be self-destructive for Black women to embrace that worldview. For example, Black women would have to accept certain funda- mental and self-devaluing assumptions: (1) white males are more worthy of study because they are more fully human than everyone else; and (2) dichotomous oppositional thinking is natural and normal. More importantly, Black women would have to act in accordance with their place in a white male worldview.

This involves accepting one's own subordination or regretting the accident of not being born white and male. In short, it may be extremely difficult for Black women to accept a worldview predicated upon Black female inferiority. Remaining in sociology by doing normal scientific investigation may also be less compli- cated for traditional sociologists than for Afro-American women. Unlike Black women, learn- ers from backgrounds where the insider information and experiences of sociology are more familiar may be less likely to see the taken-for-granted assumptions of sociology and may be more prone to apply their creativity to "normal science." In other words, the transition from student status to that of a practitioner engaged in finding significant facts that sociological paradigms deem important, matching facts with existing theories, and furthering paradig- matic development itself may proceed more smoothly for white middle-class males than for working-class Black females. The latter group is much more inclined to be struck by the mismatch of its own experiences and the paradigms of sociology itself.

Moreover, those Black women with a strong foundation in Black women's culture (e.g., those that recognize the value of self-definition and self-valuation, and that have a concrete understanding of sister- hood and motherhood) may be more apt to take a critical posture toward the entire sociologi- cal enterprise. In brief, where traditional sociologists may see sociology as "normal" and define their role as furthering knowledge about a normal world with taken-for-granted as- sumptions, outsiders within are liable to see anomalies. The types of anomalies typically seen by Black female academicians grow directly from Black women's outsider within status and appear central in shaping the direction Black femi- nist thought has taken thus far. Two types of anomalies are characteristically noted by Black female scholars. First, Black female sociologists typically report the omission of facts or obser- vations about Afro-American women in the sociological paradigms they encounter. As Scott points out, "from reading the literature, one might easily develop the impression that Black women have never played any role in this society" (1982:85). Where white males may take it as perfectly normal to generalize findings from studies of white males to other groups, Black women are more likely to see such a practice as problematic, as an anomaly. Similarly, when white feminists produce generalizations about "women," Black feminists routinely ask "which women do you mean?" In the same way that Rollins (1985) felt invisible in her em- ployer's kitchen, Afro-American female scholars are repeatedly struck by their own invisibil- ity, both as full human subjects included in sociological facts and observations, and as practitioners in the discipline itself. It should come as no surprise that much of Black feminist

thought aims to counter this invisibility by presenting sociological analyses of Black women as fully human subjects. For example, the growing research describing Black women's histor- ical and contemporary behavior as mothers, community workers, church leaders, teachers, and employed workers, and Black women's ideas about themselves and their opportunities, reflects an effort to respond to the omission of facts about Afro-American women. A second type of anomaly typically noted by Black female scholars concerns distortions of facts and observations about Black women. Afro-American women in academia are fre- quently struck by the difference between their own experiences and sociological descriptions of the same phenomena. For example, while Black women have and are themselves mothers, they encounter distorted versions of themselves and their mothers under the mantle of the Black matriarchy thesis. Similarly, for those Black women who confront racial and sexual discrimination and know that their mothers and grandmothers certainly did, explanations of Black women's poverty that stress low achievement motivation and the lack of Black female "human capital" are less likely to ring true.

The response to these perceived distortions has been one of redefining distorted images-for example, debunking the Sapphire and Mammy myths. Since facts or observations become meaningful in the context of a theory, this emphasis on producing accurate descriptions of Black women's lives has also refocused attention on major omissions and distortions in sociological theories themselves. By drawing on the strengths of sociology's plurality of subdisciplines, yet taking a critical posture toward them, the work of Black feminist scholars taps some fundamental questions facing all sociologists. One such question concerns the fundamental elements of society that should be studied. Black feminist researchers' response has been to move Black women's voices to the center of the analysis, to study people, and by doing so, to reaffirm human subjectivity and intentional- ity. They point to the dangers of omission and distortion that can occur if sociological con- cepts are studied at the expense of human subjectivity. For example, there is a distinct difference between conducting a statistical analysis of Black women's work, where Afro- American women are studied as a reconstituted amalgam of researcher-defined variables (e.g., race, sex, years of education, and father's occupation), and examining Black women's self- definitions and self-valuations of themselves as workers in oppressive jobs. While both ap- proaches can further sociological knowledge about the concept of work, the former runs the risk of objectifying Black women, of reproducing constructs of dichotomous oppositional dif- ference, and of producing distorted findings about the nature of work itself.

A second question facing sociologists concerns the adequacy of current interpretations of key sociological concepts. For example, few sociologists would question that work and family are two fundamental concepts for sociology. However, bringing Black feminist thought into the center of conceptual analysis raises issues of how comprehensive current sociological in- terpretations of these two concepts really are. For example, labor theories that relegate Afro- American women's work experiences to the fringe of analysis miss the critical theme of the interlocking nature of Black women as female workers (e.g., Black women's unpaid domestic labor) and Black women as racially-oppressed workers (e.g., Black women's unpaid slave labor and exploited wage labor). Examining the extreme case offered by Afro-American women's unpaid and paid work experiences raises questions about the adequacy of generalizations about work itself. For example, Black feminists' emphasis on the simultaneity of oppression redefines the economic system itself as problematic. From this perspective, all generalizations about the normal workings of labor markets, organizational structure, occupational mobility, and income differences that do not explicitly see oppression as problematic become suspect. In short, Black feminists suggest that all generalizations about groups of employed and unem- ployed workers (e.g., managers, welfare mothers, union members, secretaries, Black teenag- ers) that do not account for interlocking structures of group placement and oppression in an economy as simply less complete than those that do.

Similarly, sociological generalizations about families that do not account for Black wo- men's experience will fail to see how the public/private split shaping household composition varies across social and class groupings, how racial/ethnic family members are differentially integrated into wage labor, and how families alter their household structure in response to changing political economies (e.g., adding more people and becoming extended, fragmenting and becoming female-headed, and migrating to locate better opportunities). Black women's family experiences represent a clear case of the workings of race, gender, and class oppression in shaping family life. Bringing undistorted observations of Afro-American women's family experiences into the center of analysis again raises the question of how other families are affected by these same forces. While Black women who stand outside academia may be familiar with omissions and distortions of the Black female experience, as outsiders to sociology, they lack legitimated professional authority to challenge the sociological anomalies. Similarly, traditional sociologi- cal insiders, whether white males or their nonwhite and/or female disciples, are certainly in no position to notice the specific anomalies apparent to Afro-American women, because these same sociological insiders produced them. In contrast, those Black women who remain rooted in their own experiences as Black women-and who master sociological paradigms yet retain a critical posture toward them-are in a better position to bring a special perspective not only to the study of Black women, but to some of the fundamental issues facing sociology itself.

Toward Synthesis: Outsiders Within Sociology Black women are not the only outsiders within sociology. As an extreme case of outsid- ers moving into a community that historically excluded them, Black women's experiences highlight the tension experienced by any group of less powerful outsiders encountering the paradigmatic thought of a more powerful insider community. In this sense, a variety of indi- viduals can learn from Black women's experiences as outsiders within: Black men, working- class individuals, white women, other people of color, religious and sexual minorities, and all individuals who, while from social strata that provided them with the benefits of white male insiderism, have never felt comfortable with its taken-for-granted assumptions. Outsider within status is bound to generate tension, for people who become outsiders within are forever changed by their new status. Learning the subject matter of sociology stimulates a reexamination of one's own personal and cultural experiences; and, yet, these same experiences paradoxically help to illuminate sociology's anomalies. Outsiders within occupy a special place-they become different people, and their difference sensitizes them to patterns that may be more difficult for established sociological insiders to see. Some outsiders within try to resolve the tension generated by their new status by leaving sociology and re- maining sociological outsiders. Others choose to suppress their difference by striving to be- come bonafide, "thinking as usual" sociological insiders. Both choices rob sociology of diversity and ultimately weaken the discipline. A third alternative is to conserve the creative tension of outsider within status by encour- aging and institutionalizing outsider within ways of seeing. This alternative has merit not only for actual outsiders within, but also for other sociologists as well. The approach sug- gested by the experiences of outsiders within is one where intellectuals learn to trust their own personal and cultural biographies as significant sources of knowledge. In contrast to approaches that require submerging these dimensions of self in the process of becoming an allegedly unbiased, objective social scientist, outsiders within bring these ways of knowing back into the research process. At its best, outsider within status seems to offer its occupants a powerful balance between the strengths of their sociological training and the offerings of their personal and cultural experiences. Neither is subordinated to the other. Rather, experienced

reality is used as a valid source of knowledge for critiquing sociological facts and theories, while sociological thought offers new ways of seeing that experienced reality. What many Black feminists appear to be doing is embracing the creative potential of their outsider within status and using it wisely. In doing so, they move themselves and their disciplines closer to the humanist vision implicit in their work-namely, the freedom both to be different and part of the solidarity of humanity

0 notes