Trendlist: Althouse

Monday, May 3, 2021

Althouse

"Staff... have been encouraged to... wear rainbow lanyards on campus to show solidarity with the transgender community."
"Why do people feel the need to label their sexuality with such specificity? As if a 'demi-sexual' is a thing you are and always have been and always will be."
"Justice Clarence Thomas, who once went a decade without asking a question from the Supreme Court bench, is about to complete a term in which he was an active participant in every single argument...."
"Someone at the Times should be more diligent with its (I presume) younger writers who aren't well versed in terms that haven't changed over the year."
"Do You Live in a Political Bubble?/Enter your address to see the political party of the thousand voters closest to you."
Fading magnolias.

"Staff... have been encouraged to... wear rainbow lanyards on campus to show solidarity with the transgender community."

Posted: 03 May 2021 12:33 PM PDT

According to "Edinburgh University lecturers given list of 'microinsults' and guidance on transgender issues" (London Times). Rainbow lanyards!

FROM THE EMAIL: Lloyd points me to this:

"Why do people feel the need to label their sexuality with such specificity? As if a 'demi-sexual' is a thing you are and always have been and always will be."

Posted: 03 May 2021 09:04 AM PDT

"So short-sighted. Why pressure people into fitting into a sexual 'tribe'? Once we label, we sort ourselves, and then we're in a tribe, and then we reinforce tribal culture within that tribe. So if you join the 'asexual' tribe, then your asexuality will be reinforced and you'll stop going through the normal changes that most of us experience over our lives. Once you classify yourself, you ossify yourself."

Asks PatHMV, emailing me about yesterday's post about "Platonic" — sex-free — marriages.

I myself was critical of what I called "picky terms" — like "asexual, aromantic, pansexual, demisexual" — but PatHMV elaborates some of the problem with this pickiness, this specificity. How do you know that's what you are — as a type of entity — as opposed to it's just your effort to express what you feel now? And I really wonder — when we are talking about life partners who don't have any sex at all — is this really who they are or is this a way to arrive at mental peace when you've found yourself in a relationship that has some but not all of what you want?

In one of the updates at yesterday's post, a reader named Peter spoke of his long marriage that has turned into a sexless marriage in recent years. This is something that happens — a lot, I presume — and I don't think it would be accurate to think that Peter or his wife discovered that he/she is asexual.... or would it?

PatHMV said — pithily — "Once you classify yourself, you ossify yourself." But in cases like Peter's, it seems that both had classified themselves as heterosexual, but at least one of them morphed into asexuality. But — no! — we don't talk about it like that. It's conventional to think that both are heterosexual, but they just got older or more jaded and sex became unimportant. They're still heterosexual. If so, then these picky specifications aren't really sexual orientations.

And yet, if people like thinking of these various concepts as their sexual orientation, well, that's an intellectual orientation. If it makes your circumstances in life more pleasurable or more tolerable or more exciting or more rational to you, then go ahead — What's the harm? To classify is to ossify? But you can reclassify.

And maybe staying put once you marry is an important commitment to your mate. If you present yourself as heterosexual, your mate is counting on that — counting on your being ossified! If you say, you've come to the realization that your true self is asexual, that's going to be a disappointment. But if you find yourself to have become asexual, must you — should you — continue to play the role of a heterosexual? Put yourself in your spouse's position: If you knew your partner wanted no sex at all, would you want him/her to provide sex for you anyway? If yes, would you prefer that with the truth hidden or revealed?

***

There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. Unless you say otherwise, I will presume you'd enjoy an update to this post with a quote from your email.

"Justice Clarence Thomas, who once went a decade without asking a question from the Supreme Court bench, is about to complete a term in which he was an active participant in every single argument...."

Posted: 03 May 2021 08:27 AM PDT

"The justices now ask questions one at a time, in order of seniority. Justice Thomas, who joined the court in 1991, goes second, right after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., asking probing questions in his distinctive baritone.... If Justice Thomas's questions differed from those of his colleagues, it was in their courtesy. He almost never interrupted lawyers, though he asked pointed follow-up questions if there was time left. Some of his most memorable comments were colorful asides. Over the course of the last term, Justice Thomas mused about the ballooning salaries of college football coaches, said a police officer's supposed 'hot pursuit' struck him as a 'meandering pursuit,' commented on the 'sordid roots' of a Louisiana law enacted to advance white supremacy and wondered how public schools should address students' comments 'about current controversies, like protests or Black Lives Matter, antifa or Proud Boys.'... The justices hope to return to the courtroom when the new term starts in October. Once he is back on the bench, will Justice Thomas revert to his usual taciturnity?... '[It's] fair to say that Justice Thomas may well prefer the orderly questioning of the current format as opposed to the feeding frenzy that can dominate when the justices are on the bench together.' Irv Gornstein, the executive director of Georgetown's Supreme Court Institute, said that 'there is one and only one way he will not return to form — if they retain justice-by-justice questioning. And the odds of that happening.... are approximately zero.'"

Writes Adam Liptak in "Justice Clarence Thomas, Long Silent, Has Turned Talkative/The Supreme Court's orderly telephone arguments, prompted by the pandemic, have given the public a revealing look at its longest-serving member" (NYT).

The only black person on the Supreme Court was silent for a decade, then using a new method, he became a fully equal participant, and the odds of preserving the new method are approximately zero? Is that racist?

(To comment, you can email me here.)

"Someone at the Times should be more diligent with its (I presume) younger writers who aren't well versed in terms that haven't changed over the year."

Posted: 03 May 2021 08:27 AM PDT

"This article should have been titled how to design your bedroom, or how to pick out sheets, a comforter & duvet to match your mood. Making your bed is the process by which you take the sheets & comforter if there is one, & place back into the neat made up condition prior to getting into bed. The neat condition you find a bed made up when you show up at a hotel, or a friend's guest room. Making your bed is not how you design your room for pinterest, it is how you maintain it. As former SEAL Admiral William McRaven told a group of graduates — 'If you make your bed every morning, you will have accomplished the first task of the day. It will give you a small sense of pride, and it will encourage you to do another task and another and another. And by the end of the day, that one task completed, will have turned into many tasks completed. Making your bed will also reinforce the fact that the little things in life matter. If you can't do the little things right, you'll never be able to do the big things right. And if by chance you have a miserable day, you will come home to a bed that is made, that you made.' And by making your bed he wasn't talking about picking the best thread count, he was talking about making your bed- anyone over the age of 50 I'm sure knows the difference."

Writes one commenter at the NYT article "There's an Art to Making Your Bed."

More pithily, somebody says: "With a title like 'There's an Art to Making Your Bed,' I assumed it would contain tips on actually making the bed, you know, hospital corners, ironing sheets or not, etc. My bad."

The top-rated commenter isolates a quote from the article — "The way you dress your bed should communicate something about how you want to live" — and says, "Oh god kill me now."

By the way, which masculine advice-giver — William McRaven or Jordan Peterson — should get credit for the make-your-bed advice? McRaven!

(This is a post about comments at the NYT, yet there are no comments here on this blog. Oh, the irony! But if you want to say something, you can email me here.)

"Do You Live in a Political Bubble?/Enter your address to see the political party of the thousand voters closest to you."

Posted: 03 May 2021 04:25 AM PDT

I'm seeing that at the NYT. I didn't need to use the little device they had set up. I know I live in a deep blue cocoon.

So let's read some text:

"People aren't choosing to live near neighbors who share their party affiliation" said Alan Abramowitz, a professor of political science at Emory University. "They're segregating based on lifestyle choices."
The alignment of lifestyle and politics reflects the sorting of Democrats and Republicans by income and education, in addition to race. While members of both parties want to live in neighborhoods with good schools and low crime, they disagree about the importance of certain religious and cultural amenities. Democrats, surveys have shown, are more likely than Republicans to prioritize walkable neighborhoods with good public transit. Republicans, on the other hand, prize neighborhoods with more Christians and larger houses.

Is this even a problem?! There is diversity in living situations, and people have different preferences and have a wide range of choice as we satisfy ourselves. As for politics, we influence each other but we also have political preferences that have some to do with our lifestyle preferences.

Is the problem that we're too polarized politically? I'd blame politicians and the media before I'd blame the citizens who are choosing whether we want to live in big houses or walkable neighborhoods.

By the way, I live in a big house in a walkable neighborhood.

***

There is no comments section anymore, but you can email me here. Unless you say otherwise, I will presume you'd enjoy an update to this post with a quote from your email.

Fading magnolias.

Posted: 02 May 2021 07:02 PM PDT