Geoff Coupe's Blog

Reflections on life at “De Witte Wand”…

Category: Society

  • What Is Your Dangerous Idea?

    That’s the question posed by the Edge for 2006. And there’s plenty of food for thought provided by 117 thinkers who give their responses in a series of short essays. Lovely stuff.

    I find it somewhat depressing, though, at how often the "dangerous" idea is of the form: there is no god/soul/afterlife. That to me is merely the logical conclusion of what scientific evidence points to and I don’t find it dangerous in the slightest. Though to be fair, the sense of danger that is explored by the writers is the sense of how people at large could react at having the crutch of faith kicked away from under them.

    I found Sherry Turkle’s piece poignant, and Kai Krause’s piece particularly scary – Stand on Zanzibar, here we are. And Geoffrey Miller posits a terrifying dystopia akin to Atwood’s Handmaid’s tale or the underground society in Ellison’s A Boy and His Dog.

    But there’s lots of plums in this feast of ideas – go and pick out a few for yourself!

    (hat tip to Norm Geras for the link)

  • Two Data Points

    Data point one: the story in yesterday’s Observer that followed the story of how "pink Wednesday" validated the love of three gay couples.
     
     
    Erm, which values would those be, Cardinal? Mean-spiritedness, or homophobic bigotry, perhaps? Well, good riddance, I say.

  • Nothing Dies On The Internet

    As is well known, the Internet is a fount of true and false information. And often, information that is shown to be false just won’t die. Like a bad penny it turns up again, professing its versimilitude to all who will listen.
     
    A case in point, Neatorama, a site that collects neat things from around the web, published this today. Ostensibly, it’s an article about a pair of identical twins, one of whom has had the amputated arm of his twin surgically attached to his torso. Also, a finger joint has been amputated from one twin’s hand, and used to lengthen the same finger on the other twin’s hand.
     
    The article was originally published in 1999 – April 1st 1999, to be precise. Now, it’s quite possible, and indeed probable, that Neatorama realised it was a joke, but decided to re-publish as it is, in truth, a startling article. Still, the kicker is that I’ll bet that many people out there will think that this is a piece of true reporting – just as many people did when it was first published. And the real eye-opener for me is that some folks really do think that this is a neat thing to do. As I’ve said before, I never will understand human nature.
     
    Update: Nope, Neatorama thought the story was true. Sigh.

  • The Scales Of Justice

    Carl Zimmer, over at the Loom, reflects on the judge’s ruling in the Dover creationism trial. And he makes an important point about "balance". Too often, it seems, when reading or viewing a piece of journalism, both sides of the argument are presented as though they have equal weight. This is usually false. As Zimmer says: "Justice holds a balance in her hand, but balance is not what she seeks. Instead, she weighs the evidence to see which way it tips". Absolutely.
     

  • The Definition of Marriage

    I see that Mick Hartley, over at his blog, has also commented on Peter Tatchell’s piece in the Guardian. Unlike me, he doesn’t find the argument compelling, and the reason boils down to "if the definition of marriage is that it is between two people of different sex, then how can it be between two people of the same sex?" Sigh. As Norman Geras points out, this is really a form of question begging.
     
    Sorry to point yet again to the pragmatic Dutch, but faced with the dilemma of how to open up marriage to same sex couples, they had two choices: set up a parallel set of laws to govern the civil marriage of same-sex couples, or gasp, change the definition of civil marriage to open it up to same-sex couples. They chose the simpler and fairer way. As it says on the Ministry of Justice web site:

    The registered partnership was introduced in 1998. Since then, same-sex couples can already regulate their relationship legally in a way that is in most respects equivalent to a marriage. And yet it was decided to open the institute of marriage to two women or two men. The basic tenet of equal treatment was decisive in this. For many people, marriage simply holds special value and carries a certain symbolism. People may wish to confirm a relationship in precisely this manner. And there is no reason to exclude same-sex couples from this.

    That last sentence is worth re-reading: "And there is no reason to exclude same-sex couples from this". A refreshing recognition that inclusion is better than exclusion.

  • Civil Partnerships

    With all the news from the UK about the establishment of civil partnerships, it’s very easy to miss one thing in all the current euphoria.  And that fact is nailed very succinctly by Peter Tatchell in today’s Guardian. The core of it is simply this:
    While this milestone is a cause for celebration, it also has a downside. For the first time in modern British legal history, instead of repealing discrimination parliament has reinforced and extended it. Civil partnerships are for same-sex couples only. Straights are excluded. Conversely, marriage remains reserved for heterosexuals, to the exclusion of gays. The differential treatment of hetero and homo couples is enshrined in law. Welcome to segregation, UK-style.
    He’s absolutely right. And while people may talk of ‘gay marriage’, it quite clearly isn’t. Once again, I am pleased to live in the Netherlands, where the pragmatic Dutch recognise three forms of a couple living together: informal co-habitation (perhaps with a legal agreement entered into by the individuals concerned), registered partnership, and full civil marriage. All three forms are open to both different-sex and same-sex couples. 

  • The Gay Community

    The title of this post is meant to be ironic – since I don’t really believe that there is such a thing as "the gay community", any more than there is a "left-handed community". It’s a convenient label for folks to use – a form of shorthand that immediately conjures up, for good or ill, some aspects of people who belong to a particular group.
     
    As an illustration, take the story in today’s Observer: Gays Who Shape Our New Britain. Reading the thumbnail sketches of the 20 individuals named does not give me a sense that they all belong to a "gay community" – they are simply 20 talented individuals who have stamped their mark on UK society in a variety of areas, and who happen to be gay. It’s interesting that even in 2005, the Observer notes that they had to drop three people from the list because the people concerned are unwilling to be known publicly as gay. I bet I know who two of the three are; the "senior government adviser" I have no idea about, because I have no knowledge of political circles.
     
    Today’s Observer turns out to be a veritable convoy of gay buses, all turning up at once. As well as the article mentioned above, there’s also a piece from Adam Mars-Jones on Brokeback Mountain and an article from Sir Elton John. 
     
    Mars-Jones dissects Hollywood’s uneasy relationship with gays very well (for a wider trawl through Tinsel Town’s history, I can thoroughly recommend Vito Russo’s Celluloid Closet, a book that unfortunately stops at 1980 because of Russo’s untimely death). Mars-Jones is right to be suspicious of Hollywood. If you want to read a full-fledged rant on this topic, then I can heartily recommend Charles Karel Bouley II’s bucketful of bile in The Advocate. He hits the target fair and square.
     
    Finally, Sir Elton’s piece surprised me with its considered, and activist, nature. Perhaps I’m guilty of using shorthand labels a bit too readily myself, and pigeon-holing Sir Elton merely as a disgustingly rich drama queen celebrity. He’s more than just a one-dimensional caricature – just like the rest of us humans.
     

  • Seiko Disaster Radio

    Here in The Netherlands, the disaster warning sirens are tested at midday on the first Monday of every month. In the event of a real disaster striking, we’re all supposed to go indoors, shut all doors and windows, and tune into local radio for more information. Since the disaster may involve loss of electricity, the advice is to have a battery-powered radio on hand.
     
    Japan is another country where they have a disaster warning system in place, because of earthquakes. Now those nice people at Seiko have come out with a handy-dandy portmanteau device combining a battery-operated radio, clock and torch (flashlight to you speakers of American). Hey, Seiko, perhaps there’s another market for this here in The Netherlands… Mind you, the best sort of design for a device like this is to have it powered by clockwork with a winding crank. Batteries run down…

  • Cultural Dissonance

    CW, over at the Ruminations blog, posts an illustration of how different cultural norms can clash. It’s the sand in the global machine.

  • The Final Resting Place

    Another post about graveyards – but for ships this time. Geoff Manaugh posts some striking photos by Edward Burtynsky over at BLDBLOG and ponders the fate of ships and cathedrals – and the human worker ants who toil in their recycling.

  • The Final Question

    There’s an article by Claire Rayner in The Observer today about the choices open to her about her burial.  It’s got me thinking. Like her, I had assumed that cremation would be my obvious choice. But she does have a point about the waste of fossil fuel and the greenhouse gases. And like her, I certainly don’t want to end up in a religious cemetery. 
     
    Perhaps the answer is freeze-drying and being turned into compost – as I reported a couple of months ago. But I’m sure the freezing process is not particularly energy efficient.
     
    Claire mentions natural burial as the green alternative – and I’ve discovered there is a natural burial ground in The Netherlands in the Bergerbos near Sint Odilienberg.  The Bergerbos looks to be a beautiful area, and I certainly wouldn’t object to being buried there. Just so long as there’s not a piece of the ghastly public art that the Dutch seem to go in for in the near vicinity. Such as that awful butterfly in the 13th photo on the web site. The woods themselves are all I would wish for.

  • Cultural Conditioning

    Lauren, over at the Feministe blog, posts a powerful tale about culture, courage, prejudice and a piece of cloth. Go and read it.

  • One Day

    That’s how long the civil partnership of gay couple Matthew Roche (46) and Christopher Cramp (37) lasted. And before you jump to conclusions, the reason that it only lasted a day is because Matthew died of cancer yesterday. But it was important to them both that their love and committment to each other be acknowledged by the society in which they lived. Recognition of basic human dignity matters to people. That’s an affirmation of the institution of marriage, not its undermining. Pity that some are so blind that they cannot see that.

  • Civil Partnerships

    So today is the day that same-sex civil partnerships become legal in the UK. Needless to say, most of the UK media is carrying the story, although the Daily Telegraph is somewhat stingy with its coverage, preferring instead to concentrate on Christianity.
     
    Hopefully, at some point the law will permit full civil marriages, just as here in The Netherlands, but this is a good start.
     
    And for those who think that the institution of marriage is somehow under attack, a review through history will show that marriage has always had a wide range of expression. My favourite of these historical examples is also the very earliest: the tomb of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep – dating from around 2,400 BC. Although even here we’re not free of the stereotypes, it would seem. They are both described in the hieroglyphs as having the title of "Overseer of the manicurists in the palace of the King". Honestly, if we’re not all supposed to be screaming hairdressers or make-up artists, we’re bloody manicurists…  

  • A Distinct Whiff of Prejudice

    As you’re probably aware, The Vatican has now published its document on gay men who want to be priests, and as you would imagine, it’s not a barrel of fun. I wasn’t going to comment on it, but then a document was published yesterday that I did want to comment on. That document was a leader in The Guardian that was headlined "Distinctly Without Prejudice" and which was, to my eyes, a surprisingly uncritical take on the Vatican’s document.
     
    It opens with a sentence that raised my eyebrows: "The most important thing about the Vatican’s new document on gay priests is that it is not bigoted" and it went on from there, keeping my eyebrows firmly entwined with my receding hairline. I see, from the Guardian’s letters page today, that I’m not the only one to have had a similar reaction. I think the best summary is given by a Dr. Dan Healy:
    Your support for the Vatican’s new policy on gay priests is incomprehensible. Which part of: gays are intrinsically immoral, they are objectively disordered, their behaviour contrary to natural law, their acts are grave sins (your own summary of Catholic doctrine) is without prejudice? It is bullying fundamentalism, based on a misogynist conception of priesthood and faith.
    Hear, hear!

  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali in London

    Steve, over at The Sharpener, pens a piece about Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s appearance at the ICA in London. Worth reading.

  • Lightning Can Strike Twice

    Rachel’s story has been published today in The Sunday Times. Just go and read it, you hear?
     
    Update: Rachel writes: "Resentment and anger are the breeding ground for the pitiless narcissism that I believe lies at the heart of human evil, where you choose to deaden your empathy towards others and elevate your personal beliefs over any concern for the human consequences of your actions". While I think that resentment and anger are certainly two of the breeding grounds, I don’t think that they are the only ones for that "pitiless narcissism that lies at the heart of human evil". Personal beliefs, in the form of blind faith, can be sufficient in themselves, as witness this awful story in the Sunday Telegraph. 

  • Umberto Eco on God

    There’s an interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph today written by Umberto Eco: God Isn’t Big Enough for Some People. In it, he weighs the religious celebration of Christmas against the purely commercial one. Not surprisingly, he finds the latter wanting. But where I think he and I part company is that he seems to be comparing apples with oranges here. He is partially right when he says that "Religions are systems of belief that enable human beings to justify their existence and which reconcile us to death". I say partially, because I think that religions also give rise to institutions that bring about a whole other set of reasons for religious belief – more akin to powering the institution rather than the individual human. Be that as it may, he seems to be suggesting that, beyond the aspects of Christmas celebrations that have triggered this piece of writing, the only alternative view of the world is the commercial, materialist view.
     
    I was reminded of a rather silly piece of writing a couple of weeks ago in The Guardian by Nicholas Buxton on why religion has the edge over secularism. According to him: "The alternative is nihilism. If we truly believed that life was meaningless, we would have no reason to get up in the morning – ultimately, the most rational thing to do would be to jump over the edge of a cliff". As Ophelia Benson retorted in ButterfliesAndWheels: "Oh, please. Why would that be rational? ‘Hey ho, life is meaningless. Whaddya know. Well, here I am, I’ve just finished writing this book, I’m going to Italy tomorrow, next year I’m going to China, I’m learning to play the cello, a friend is coming over for dinner tonight and afterwards we’re going to the theatre, this afternoon I’m going to go for a walk in the mountains, I have a bowl of fresh peaches for breakfast, the coffee smells good, the Trout Quintet is playing on the radio, it’s a gorgeous day, oh look, there goes a bald eagle – but life is meaningless, so obviously the most rational thing to do is go jump over the edge of a cliff’".
     
    I think Eco is being like Buxton: making false comparisons. The alternative to religion is not nihilism; the alternative to a religious celebration of Christmas is not a commercial one either.

  • The Singapore Sling…

    …well, perhaps not quite yet. But Spiegel carries an English-language article about an unlikely event: a Sex Industry convention held in Singapore… As ever, Dr. Judy gives good quotes…

  • Today’s Anniversary…

    …is that today (25th November) is designated the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
     
    And if you think that that’s another pointless checkmark in the touchy-feely box, then just ponder on the fact that the World Health Organisation said yesterday that one in six women worldwide suffers domestic violence. Sometimes I find it difficult to like my species…
     
    (hat tip to Anna over at Sepia Mutiny for reminding me)