Outsourced: The War on Boys

Billy Bragg: "Waiting for the Great Leap Forward"
Very old video (before the fall of The Wall)
"I'd give a week's pay to talk like you."

No, not that Benatar.

Ever since I heard him with Sam Harris, I've admired South African philosopher David Benatar for his bravery in honestly addressing questions that almost no one considers. Those who do examine those topics are slandered instead of engaged. In Losing My Religions, I link to the New Yorker article "The Case for Not Being Born," which goes into the thesis of David's book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.

Unfortunately, with his new book The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys, David has followed Caplan and decided to seek praise from the rabid misogynist mobs that thrive on the internet. There is an interesting review of the book I reproduce below, even though as a feminist (i.e., I believe women are human beings) I obviously don't agree with everything in it.

Before that, however, I want to emphasize one thing: David argues that men being drafted (in the past) proves discrimination against men. But this is the same as saying the fact that open homosexuals were not sent off to fight proves discrimination against straight people. Or that only men died in the early astronaut programs proving men were facing discrimination. Jeebus. 

By Hudson

This book is just one extended deepity, a concept thought up by Daniel Dennett. Insofar as anything in this book is true, it is trite. Insofar as anything in this book is profound, it is false.

Before I delve into the problems in this book, let me just say that I am not a feminist and am, in fact, quite critical of feminism. I purchased this book hoping that I would learn about varieties of discrimination against males that I had heretofore not considered. I reasoned that David Benatar, the controversial philosopher and famous antinatalist, would have some profound insights to share. I was wrong.

Benatar structures this book in a way that, at first glance, seems designed to minimize any enjoyment readers derive from reading it. He spends the first 20-30 pages of the book telling us what he is going to tell us. I realize this is an academic book, but this is just incredibly boring and unnecessarily protracted. I was seriously depressed 20 pages in at how slow he was moving. The original insights and good points in this book could easily be condensed to 25 pages. Benatar treats his audience like we are complete morons. He responds to the most inane criticisms of his positions that, as far as I know, no one has actually made, and spends pages upon pages refuting these, dare I say it, strawman arguments. Unfortunately he does not address what I consider to be good criticisms of his book, such as the fact that it is dull, uninsightful, misleading, and unimportant. The first half of the book details the disadvantages of being male. I did not read this book in order to learn that it sucks to live a few years less than women on average. I read this book to perceive how men are being unjustly discriminated against. Amusingly, he then goes into how many, but not all of the disadvantages males face are due to discrimination (again, why talk about disadvantages not due to discrimination at all?), but then completely fails to make persuasive arguments for causal linkages between disadvantages and discrimination. For instance, in discussing male life expectancy, he points out how much money is spent on breast cancer research and how little is spent on lung cancer research, all the while ignoring the fact that people are far less inclined to donate to a cause to help people when they feel that those individuals are responsible for their problems. People with lung cancer are often blamed for their states due to the link between tobacco products and lung cancer, while most if not all view breast cancer victims as just that, victims.

Benatar essentially makes the claim that just under half of sexual assaults are by women by stating that some studies show that sexual assaults committed by women account for 2% of the total, while some suggest they account for half. He then concludes that it is reasonable to the assume the answer is somewhere in the middle. Except he never actually evaluates how good the studies are he is drawing from. I would often look at the references only to find that the study making a controversial claim was like 30-40 years old, while the study he cites confirming common knowledge was more recent and had been replicated repeatedly. He seems to just treat all studies equally and doesn't take the time to weed out studies that made errors and drew faulty conclusions. Worse, he repeatedly discusses the "uncertainty" surrounding a variety of questions due to "conflicting" studies when some studies are quite clearly less reputable than others.

He makes the claim that men are subject to more violence than women, and argues that this suggests there is discrimination against men. Except he also fails to consider that men are statistically more violent themselves, more likely to commit violence that results in violence against them, more likely to exact revenge, less likely to be deterred by more minor punishments, etc. These qualities provide reason to think that the greater violence directed against males is not evidence of discrimination. Benatar fails to provide any evidence that violence is frequently committed against men as a result of them being men.

One of the biggest wastes of time in the entire book (and there are many) is the section on how men are discriminated against because they are often conscripted into armies. While I agree that this is sexist because men who do not want to join the army and are forced to fight in a conflict that could cost them life or limb are suffering when many women would be adept at fighting alongside them, one simply must inquire how frequently this happens today, considering liberal democracies have abolished the draft. Benatar apparently addresses the criticism that this is merely a past form of discrimination and not applicable by essentially responding "So what? The point is that men have been discriminated against." Yes, except you misled me and other readers into thinking that you were addressing contemporary sexism against men, and this simply does not qualify. Indeed, reading over 20 pages that Benatar spends boringly arguing about every minute point in goal of showing that women are adept at serving alongside men in contemporary armies was pointless. His rationale in doing this was to show that women can be effective in combat, therefore there is no rational argument for excluding them, therefore military drafts should conscript both men and women into combat. This doesn't even serve to make any point for his argument, as no liberal democracies have drafts, and those countries that do have drafts are almost certainly discriminating far more against women than men in various other ways. Moreover, few countries are engaged in wars at the present - warfare is at an all time low. Lastly, if you really want to go into the history of discrimination between men and women, there is an even clearer case that women have borne the far greater share of suffering resulting from discrimination. I'm not sure that is a wise avenue for Benatar to take.

Benatar downplays differences in male and female innate psychology when it makes men look bad, but plays it up when it defeats feminist arguments. For instance, he endorses the claim that women tend to have smaller standard deviations in intelligence and thus fewer idiots but also fewer geniuses (something I agree with), but he calls into question claims that men are innately more aggressive than women are (something that is also true). This is just obnoxious.

Benatar makes some truly petty claims. He spends an inordinate amount of time complaining about how male prisoners are not afforded the same privacy from the opposite sex that female prisoners are. For instance, male guards cannot see female prisoners nude, while female guards can see male prisoners nude. This is absurd, because prison is already violating one's privacy and is not supposed to be enjoyable, so even if a few male prisoners were bothered by this, that doesn't mean that it should be addressed. If anything, I would rather women than men see me nude in prison, because there is a far smaller chance that they would sexually assault me, whereas there have been a handful of instances where male prison guards have raped prisoners. Female prisoners are not allowed to be seen naked by male guards because of the threat of rape. They are very vulnerable in that situation, and many men would take advantage of that. Which brings me to a nice segue in Benatar carrying on endlessly about women raping men. Anyone who thinks that there is a moral equivalency between 30 year old women having sex with 14 year old boys and 30 year old men having sex with 14 year old girls is delusional. Benatar even talks about women forcing men to copulate, which is seriously such a rare occurrence that one wonders what the point of talking about it is. Does he draw any meaningful conclusions about it? No. He just points out that it happens. Yeah, many things physically possible have happened. Does that mean that it is all worth mentioning? No. He even wastes paper complaining about urinals in male bathrooms and how we have less privacy as a result.

Benatar then discusses the issue of custody of children in divorce cases. Women win far more often. Can we draw the conclusion that men are discriminated against? No. Men attempt to get custody of children far less often, children more often want to be with their mothers, and women are probably more suitable candidates for custody more often due various female tendencies that males more frequently lack. Benatar has to prove that there is systemic discrimination here, but from his armchair he can do no such thing. He instead says that we should inspect this matter further. He makes this claim a number of times, which is annoying, because he is the one claiming there is rampant sexism against males. Why is it so hard to prove if it is there? Where is the empirical data? He makes the claim that mothers are statistically more likely to exact violence upon their children than fathers are. However, he then proceeds to inform us of the obvious likelihood that this is explained by the fact that mothers are around their children far more often. What use does this piece of information serve? More investigation is needed, he asserts. Actually, I really don't think more manpower is needed to study these insignificant questions. There are far more important social problems meriting our limited attention.

Let me also take the opportunity to say that Benatar is a dreadful, uninspired writer. He evidently thinks that maintaining the calm, logical, clear writing style of the logician is optimal. Unfortunately, this comes at the expense of readability and enjoyability. Emotional investment and display, even in nonfiction work (for instance, see Lawrence Lessig's appeal at the end of "Republic, Lost"), show how important the author feels the issue at hand is, and can be inspiring to the reader. Of course, I would find it incredibly difficult to feel emotionally invested in asserting Benatar's claims, because they are so trite and insignificant, so perhaps the blame really lies there.

Benatar asserts sexism is displayed in homosexual males being targeted for violence more frequently. Aside from the obvious rejoinder that there are more gays than lesbians, Benatar completely ignores the fact that gay males tend to be more outspoken about their sexuality. He also ignores the fact that the primary perpetrators of violence, males, frequently find gay sex to be repugnant but oftentimes do not see lesbian sex that way. Sexism, then, is not the obvious cause of this asymmetry in hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation.

Oh, and here is a little gem from the book. pg. 154: "It cannot be the case that women are discriminated against when they are underrepresented in good jobs, but men are not discriminated against when overrepresented in undesirable or dangerous jobs."

That is just a patently false assertion.

Oh yeah, the book is littered with typos as well, indicating that this is not really a finished product. Oddly, the conclusion of the book is not a conclusion, but is instead more or less an argument against feminism, as opposed to, say, an grand finale on the state of male discrimination. I actually think it was one of the books strong points, along with the penultimate chapter on why women should not receive affirmative action, but this has all been said before and far more eloquently, such as in "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker. In fact I felt like the end of the book was completely ripped from Pinker's brilliant tome.

Why, if this is book is so bad, am I giving it 2 stars?

1. I assume there are books that are worse that it would simply be unfair to equate this with.

2. Benatar actually does provide a few interesting insights that I had not considered before. For instance, I found his argument persuasive that the common view that circumcision is permissible without anesthesia to correctly demonstrate a double standard when few in liberal democracies would permit anything analogous for females.

If you are interested in contemporary sexism that causes untold suffering, I recommend you read "Half the Sky" by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn (or Dunn-Wu... as Benatar calls her). "Half the Sky" is a brilliant book that is empirically driven yet infused with emotionally powerful anecdotes. If you read that book before or after reading this one, the comparison would likely make you laugh, cry, or both.

Women Should Not Be Property

Legal marriage, February 1993.
No ownership, although she is wearing my late great uncle's coat. 😉

This was prompted by Gloria Steinem’s and Dolly Parton’s deaths. 

I don’t see everything everywhere all the time as an incarnation of sexism (or racism etc.). But it is amazing how many situations where male is still the default. Every once in a while, look at something (TV show, book, podcast) and ask yourself, “Is this menmenmenmenmen?” The answer is generally “Yes.” 

2026 and The Bechdel Test is still a thing.

Maybe even more than that, though, is the ongoing idea that a modern, liberal woman still needs to “Have it all” – a full career while creating, birthing, and being the primary caregiver to kids. And also be judged by their looks (see below). Brutal.

Excerpts from 2022’s Losing My Religions:

I thought it was offensive – viscerally offensive – to have a father “give away” his daughter. How does this not perpetuate the idea that a woman is property? Diane wanted to take my name, which again is symbolic of a property exchange. 

…

Driving in New Mexico a few days ago, we listened to an episode of the [now defunct] podcast No Stupid Questions where psychologist Angela Duckworth [Grit] and Stephen Dubner [Freakonomics] noted that women in our society are judged first on their looks, and second on having kids. Men are judged for what they do. 

[Doesn’t that say it all? Seriously.]

…

[Our kid-to-be’s] surname was continually a big deal [while Anne was pregnant]. In yet another example of how men are considered owners, women would ask, “How will people know who the father is?” That one caught me by surprise. Women’s willingness to allow themselves to be “given away” from father to husband, with the surname changing to reflect the change in ownership, is utterly repulsive. Everyone who thinks that women have it easy should imagine being so indoctrinated that you go along with it.

Sexism part 3 - insidious and unrecognized

Mary Chapin Carpenter - "He Think's He'll Keep Her" 

Preface: I only recognized the below later in life. If my engineering near-marriage experience had gone through, I'm sure we would have followed the normal script. (In part because she had a worse last name than me, believe it or not.) 

But once we know better, we should do better.

And yes, the below isn't universal. However, it is common and generally unquestioned.

In my review of Bryan Caplan's Don't Be a Feminist, I listed things that women couldn't do in the United States within my lifetime:

• Get a credit card in their own name.
• Be guaranteed that they would not get fired for being pregnant.
• Serve on a jury everywhere.
• Fight on the front lines.
• Go to any Ivy League school.
• Take legal action against workplace sexual harassment.
• Decide not to have sex with their husband.
• Marry whomever they chose.
• Take the birth control pill regardless of where they lived.

(And of course, even today, men will force raped 10-year-olds to carry the pregnancy to term and bear their rapist's child.)

But now, laws have changed. So aren't women now equal?

Think about the life of an "average" female. When they're born, they are given their father's name, even though the woman risked her life to construct the baby and give birth; she often feeds the baby from her own body. (When they found out EK had Anne's last name, multiple women asked Anne, "But how will people know who the father is?" WTF??)

Then the baby is treated differently than a boy from the time they are an infant. As a young woman, she is often referred to as "Miss," because her marital status must be conveyed to everyone -- if they are currently owned by a husband is the important information. (When working in the local school district, Anne has had kids insist they have to call her either "Miss" or "Missus."*) 

If she gets married to a man, her father (!) "gives her away" to the husband. She then takes the man's name to convey the change in ownership from father to husband at the moment when another man says "I pronounce you man and wife."

If you really think about it, this is totally fucked up. 

Three things:

1. As said, with a very small change, I would have followed the standard script. My kids would have my last name and Diane would probably have gone by "Mrs. Matt Ball."

2. This isn't the worst thing in the world; your average woman in the United States has it better than most people in the world, especially women in patriarchal societies. But when you have Tangerine-Palpatine-endorsed Republicans saying publicly that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, how different are we from the Taliban, really?

3. I'm not as angry about this as this series implies. Bryan is just following his sexist programming and is playing to his angry, incel audience. (Not that they are all incels, but pretty much no one calls Bryan out. So he does what gets him positive feedback.)

Much, much more: 10,000 Years of Patriarchy. 

*One little girl asked Anne, "Why do you wear boy shoes?"

Poor, poor men

Song: Alison Krauss & Union Station, "Let Me Touch You For Awhile"

New feedback on Losing My Religions: “The book makes me want to be a better human. I plan to keep giving my little donations to One Step forever (or as long am able to). I am going to share the ebook.”

I keep hearing from incels who aren't happy with my anti-Bryan-Caplan (et al.) posts about the treatment of women in this society (example). They are unable to get past their personal experience (a woman getting a job, a woman rejecting them) to see the actual societal trends.

For anyone who is actually interested in honestly considering the issue, here are good sources:

When women stopped coding. A real-life example and answer to the guys who claim that women have no interest in computers, so companies should quit trying to hire them.

Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. "Data is fundamental to the modern world. From economic development, to healthcare, to education and public policy, we rely on numbers to allocate resources and make crucial decisions. But because so much data treats men as the default and women as atypical, bias and discrimination are baked into our systems. And women pay tremendous costs for this bias, in time, money, and often with their lives."

The Role of Benevolent Sexism in Gender Inequality. 

Georgia O'Keeffe

Choose Truth and Hope over Dogma and Doom

"when you hold the definition of poverty constant, the rate fell from about 22% before the Great Society to about 2-3% today ... Giving poor people food and medical care really does make them less poor — as does giving them housing vouchers and cash subsidies like the EITC. The welfare state does what we created it to do."

Noah Smith: Progressives need to learn to take the W

Outrage is only one motivation for change, and it comes with a cost. 

excerpts:

[I]f we want to measure the impact of welfare programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and the EITC, we can’t just update our standards in order to cancel out the effect of these programs, and then conclude that America hasn’t done anything to reduce poverty!  ...

My hypothesis is that some progressives don’t want to acknowledge the success of the War on Poverty — and of subsequent welfare programs like the EITC and Child Tax Credit — because they’re afraid that acknowledging past successes might reduce outrage, and thus reduce momentum for further reform. ...

[M]any progressives seem not to know how to acknowledge their own victories. They’re so dependent on outrage as their motivating force that they recoil against any positivity that might sap that wellspring of anger.

This ends up hurting progressive causes, for a number of reasons. Most obviously, it leads progressives to incorrect conclusions about which tools are effective for achieving their goals. If you insist on telling yourself — and the world — that poverty in America hasn’t fallen, you’ll discount the power of the welfare state. That will also play into conservative hands, since the idea that welfare programs are ineffective is central to the arguments against them.

Another reason progressives shouldn’t rely exclusively on outrage is that it’s probably a lot more powerful in the short term than in the long term. Organizational behavior researchers and management experts will generally tell you that flagellating your employees can motivate them to greater efforts for a while, but will eventually lead to burnout and cognitive exhaustion. Theories of long-term motivation, like the broaden-and-build theory and self-determination theory, emphasize harnessing positive emotions of hopefulness and growth.

...activists are finding themselves unable to sustain their energy. Protests against abortion bans have been fairly anemic. And it’s not hard to see why — rates of depression among young progressives have soared. There’s a fair amount of research suggesting that political negativity is being “internalized”

After decades of progress against poverty, racism, and sexism, the progressive culture of the 2010s told young Americans that everything in their country was horrible and that they needed to revolt against it. ...

Again, this is not to say that outrage is never appropriate, or that it’s never effective. Sometimes it is. But it’s suboptimal to have it be the one and only motivating force behind all pressure for social change. You need positive motivations too — hope, including rational hope based on past successes, is important.

Environmentalists Kill and Men are Whiney Little Bitches

OK, both of those claims in the headline should be modified with "Many."

From Open Philanthropy's Alexander Berger (emphasis added):

People died of heat in Japan because of energy conservation measures after their nuclear plans were shut down

So instead of using carbon-free electricity, they killed people. But that is small potatoes compared to who nuclear power has saved:

Climatologists James Hansen and Pushker Kharecha calculated that the use of nuclear power between 1971 and 2009 avoided the premature deaths of 1.84 million people by preventing air pollution from burning coal.

Also, one whiney white dude came out of the woodwork to complain about my takedown of Bryan Caplan's attack on his "feminism" strawman. (And didn't put his name on his rant.) Not to be ad hominem, but doesn't he read like someone who couldn't get a date in high school and resents that anyone other than straight white dudes has any say in anything?

His argument is basically that no woman can have earned her position. My reply:

See, this is the kind of "I'm a poor whiney white man who can't even put my name to my complaints" bullshit that just drives me crazy. Just like "we had a (half) black president, so racism isn't a thing. Except for whites being discriminated against."

Of course you doubt my wife's qualifications. THAT IS FUCKING SEXISM! Can't you fucking see that? You see my wife as inherently less than. Unworthy. 

Of course I can give you her fucking qualifications (won the college's top teaching award, president of the two national organizations, full teaching professor first year eligible) but it doesn't matter. All you see is an unworthy woman. Just like every other woman is unworthy because a school that had been nearly all male enacted policies to get past our inherent biases for others like us. Just because a few men in a world completely controlled by men decided that maybe things should be different. 

Poor you. 

Of all the discriminatory measures listed, you pick on health insurance. As though women get pregnant all on their own. In your world, women have to pay with their bodies and their careers to continue the species. And they should also pay more for insurance to have that privilege. And to have you tell them when they can have a child.

And all the rest of societies structural prejudices are "solved." Dream on. 

This country was made by men for men and men enacted laws to protect men's power. But a few decades ago, a few of those laws were undone. So everything is now "solved." Except for discrimination against whiney little bitches like yourself.

Your lack of empathy, your self-absorption, it is just astounding. You make me embarrassed to be a man. Except that I'll put my name on my comments.

Of course, there are daily examples of what women face; e.g., Why Is Silicon Valley So Awful to Women? 

(More from Tyler Cowen.)

But yeah, keep telling yourself that you're the one oppressed.

Build a level playing field / Compassion is not zero-sum

Aimee Mann - How Am I Different

Ezra Klein has a recent podcast with Richard Reeves (a father to three sons) entitled The Men - and Boys - Are Not Alright. (Despite my criticisms below, the podcast is worth listening to.) 

To start with, they discuss the educational gap between boys and girls. On its face, this would seem to perhaps support people like Bryan Caplan's contention that society is biased toward girls. But upon being pressed by Ezra, Reeves admits that this education gap is mostly between children of color, especially Black boys and girls. 

So it isn't, as you'll see claimed by some conservatives and their incel followers, that "the bitches just hate men." Instead, it is actually an issue of poverty and the criminalization of Black boys and men. 

This, of course, leads to another area where Ezra pushed back. When Blacks are arrested at a higher rate, conservatives are quick to claim that this is because of something inherent in Black people (men and boys in particular). 

Similarly, for decades conservatives said that women just couldn't hack college, or athletics, or being a cop. (They still say this about computer science.) But now, when it seems as though some males are falling behind in some areas, conservatives are quick to blame "the system" as set up by "feminists." 

(Men aren't, of course, falling behind in terms of income. And here, conservatives also blame women - they aren't ambitious, they value family, they prefer lower-paying jobs.)

I would have liked Ezra to push back on the contention that boys' brains develop more slowly than girls'. I'm not saying this isn't true (I'm no blank-slater). But I don't know how we can know that for sure. 

As I've noted before, if you dress a baby in stereotypical boy or girl clothes, people treat that same baby differently. This differential treatment starts when still a baby! How can you tease out the nature signal from the nurture? 

If, in our sexist society, boys are raised to value physical activities (e.g., sports) while girls are raised to value intellectual activities (e.g., school), how can we say that boys do worse (on average) in school because of their brain development? 

What about the fact that boys and girls don't seem to differ in the same way on standardized test scores? In this case, conservatives are quick to claim SAT math scores "prove" that boys are inherently better at math.

So to be clear: According to conservatives, when boys do worse in school, it is the system's fault. When boys do better at math, it is because boys are inherently better.

I am not saying that the system is set up perfectly to allow boys to reach their full potential. For example: there are many fewer male teachers in public schools than several decades ago. This, along with the incredible incarceration and unemployment rates of young Black men, leaves boys - especially Black boys - with fewer role models for societal-approved success. However, the declining number of young men working with boys is because of systemic racism and the even lower value our society gives to public-school teaching - because it is considered "women's work."

The facts don't support blaming feminism for the current plight of some boys and men. Instead of spending our time attacking "feminists," what we should and can do instead is to recognize and address* society's systemic racism and sexism.

Yes, it is easier to complain about mean "feminists" on Twitter. And it will earn you quick praise from the many angry young men eager to believe their failures are because of "the bitches." There are tens of millions in the United States who go about their days believing society is biased against white males in favor of inherently inferior women and Blacks.  

Also, for people like Caplan et al.,  I realize:

The more you invest in a set of beliefs -- the greater the sacrifice you make in the service of that conviction -- the more resistant you will be to evidence that suggests that you are mistaken. You don't give up. You double down.

-Malcolm Gladwell, The Bomber Mafia

But while well-off white men (like Caplan) will continue to thrive, nothing will really improve for much of society - and indeed, it will get worse - until we want to lift up everyone.

* As Malcolm Gladwell makes clear in his three-part education miniseries of Revisionist History (starting with "Carlos Doesn't Remember") trying to deal with racism and inequality through college programs is simply too late. High School is too late. We have to start improving the lives of those born into poverty even before they are born.

PS:

Sexism part 2

Mary Chapin Carpenter - "I Tried Going West"

I see that Bryan Caplan is whining again about how feminists have destroyed the world. His proof? People are meeting their romantic partners via apps instead of at work. 

Because what good is it to be a powerful man if you can't prey on women at work? You can't be expected to use an app to find someone you don't have authority over and can't intimidate with bad reviews or termination. 

It is good that Caplan is dedicating himself to attacking feminism -- make sure his daughter can grow up free to be hassled by sexist incel co-workers. Like this person just elevated by Ron DeSantis. Bravo, "Doctor" Caplan.

From Reannon

There is, of course, loads to say and much horror and grief to deal with. One quick reminder: More people voted for Hillary. In the past seven presidential elections, Democrats have gotten the most votes in six. No other party had ever done that before in the history of the U.S. Donald J Trump is absolutely right about the Electoral College.

Below is a post from my friend Reannon (shared with permission). The damage already done to this country, by validating and elevating hatred and prejudice and assault, is beyond measure. But we have to stand up. We have to.

"I've seen several of my left-leaning friends saying that they hope that Trump's presidency is a "success"; indeed, Hillary said the same thing yesterday. If by "success" you mean, "I hope he doesn't bring any more shame to our nation and the office of the President than he already has and doesn't completely jack things up," then I'm with you.

"But, I don't wish him political success. I don't wish him success in implementing any of his plans. I wish him nothing but trouble. I hope that he will continue to bleed staff and will never find his organizational footing -- just like he did during the campaign -- because he is an ineffective manager. I hope Congressional Republicans who he has insulted and demeaned for 18 months will stand in his way as much as possible. I hope that Congressional Democrats will filibuster and sit-in and protest every chance they can. I hope the ACLU sues him whenever he threatens our Constitution. I hope Americans continue to protest and push back and organize. I hope we give him nothing but heartburn and difficulty and stress.

"To hope for anything less is to want him to be successful in building a ridiculous wall that will bankrupt our nation; in deporting millions of hardworking immigrants who do the jobs that American citizens *refuse* to do and who need a path to citizenship; in implementing tired economic plans that were proven ineffective long ago; in gutting Obamacare and leaving millions of Americans without health insurance; in ignoring the dire threats of global warming; and in cultivating a culture of fear, racism, sexism, and violence against the "other." I hope he is the least successful president in the history of our republic."

The Roadmap to Animal Liberation

The Roadmap to Animal Liberation
Why, What, How, Who, and When

A talk in Los Angeles, November, 2014


Perhaps the single line most animal advocates would agree on is:
“We want animal liberation.”

But exactly what does this mean?


Why
The first question – Why – is the easiest to answer and the hardest to face. I assume we don’t have to go into detail. We all know non-human animals suffer absolutely horrific brutality in numbers that completely dwarf the human population of the earth. We could spend all day watching sickening footage of animals being tortured and brutalized, and when we get up tomorrow, there would probably be another investigation revealing new horrors.

Piglets being stomped; from this video.

A lot of people don’t want to face this constant and stomach-churning cruelty. I can certainly understand this. And others believe the brutality justifies anything, including burning anger and even hatred of those who eat meat. I also understand this.

Going forward, I ask that you keep in mind this “Why” – the overwhelming cruelty to animals, and the moral imperative to end it as quickly as possible. This is the bottom line.


What
While the “Why” of animal liberation is clear, “What” animal liberation will entail is a topic of significant dispute. For some individuals, animal liberation requires that everyone adopt their specific diet, lifestyle, and philosophy. And not just our views about animals, but about religion, politics, GMOs, smoking, alcohol, families, and every other subject.

Of course part of me wants everyone to hold all my views. But this will never happen. And if I insist “veganism” must encompass all my views, I make it significantly harder, if not impossible, for others to even consider the animals’ plight. The more we insist on, the fewer individuals we’ll inspire to take any constructive steps for the animals.


Lessons from Other Movements
In one sense, it is instructive to consider human liberation. While things are by no means perfect for people, we have to admit most of us in the US have it way better than other animals. This doesn’t mean no one faces oppression, discrimination, or even violence. This isn’t to say there is no racism, sexism, or homophobia. This isn’t to say we don’t have a long way to go to achieve equality for all people.

What we have accomplished, though, is that now our society generally says these things are no longer acceptable.

What does this tell us about working for animal liberation?

If we step back for a second, we should note that about 99% of the animals killed in the US die to be eaten. So from where we are now, to a first approximation, animal liberation would be achieved if society no longer viewed animals as food. Not that everyone agrees with us on everything, but that animals are generally seen as individuals, not food.

This might seem far off, but in a way, bringing about this shift in perspective is an easier task than securing full human liberation. The vast majority of people oppose cruelty to animals – far more than believe in equal marriage, or equal pay for equal work, or even in racial equality.

Think about it this way: there are people who will consciously discriminate against or even work to deny equality for their fellow human beings. But almost no one eats meat because they actually want animals to suffer.


How
This brings us to the “How” of animal liberation: There are millions and millions of people out there who share our disgust, our moral revulsion, at animal cruelty. In fact, there are already enough people close to us to change society’s norms and bring about de facto animal liberation!

Pay-per-view video.

What we have to do now is convince those people to match their actions with their ethics.


Being Right Is Not Enough
Here’s one of the many mistakes I made in the past: I thought being right was enough. I thought all I had to do was point out how immoral it is to eat animals, and I was done.

But of course, being right isn’t enough. Resting on my perceived superiority wasn’t just harmful to making progress for the animals – it was downright stupid! I hadn’t changed my diet simply because someone pointed out what I was doing was “wrong.” Instead, I evolved over time, in fits and starts, even backsliding away from vegetarianism for a while.

Most vegans I know also evolved over time. They didn’t change because someone screamed at them. They weren’t chanted into being vegan. They changed, like me, because our hearts and minds were slowly opened to the animals’ plight. Just as importantly, we slowly became convinced that we had the ability to take meaningful action.

So as tempting as it is to be “right,” to be “pure” in our beliefs, what is actually important is that we are effective in getting people to start to evolve, to begin taking meaningful steps for the animals.

And in many ways, our task is actually easier than other social justice movements. We don’t have to eradicate a lifetime of racism. We don’t have to undo centuries of oppressive culture.

We already have people’s revulsion at cruelty to animals. We just have to get them to act according to the ethics they already have.

Yes, of course this can be difficult – we have to overcome habit, convenience, and peer pressure. But it is getting easier and easier every day! There was a great review of the vegan restaurant Souley Vegan, where someone who calls himself “a carnivore all the way” said:

Wish they were in my neighborhood, ‘cause I’d be one happy fat vegan cat eating some deep fried tofu with their crazy good tartar sauce. This food is the shizznyee. Not kidding.

We can do this. We no longer have to settle for the attitude of “do something, do anything.” We no longer have to settle for advocacy practices that were popular twenty years ago. Now we can pursue modern outreach like video that leverage the latest technological advances and psychological research. These new tools and insights mean our efforts and our donations can have the biggest possible impact for the animals.

And just as important, we now have vegan food that is the shizznyee!

The specifics of “How” to bring about animal liberation is a huge topic in and of itself. This is why I wrote The Accidental Activist and co-wrote The Animal Activist’s Handbook – to share what I and my colleagues have learned over the past quarter century. If we all can avoid the mistakes I’ve made in the past, the animals will be much better off.


Effective Advocacy Requires Focus
But before I cover the last two topics, I want to mention one key lesson we should keep in mind if we want to be effective advocates:

We should leave our ego at the door.

I know I’ve said this already, but I really can’t emphasize it enough. I deeply regret all my many failed opportunities to help animals – all because I couldn’t keep the focus on the animals and on the person with whom I was speaking.

In short, we have to stay focused if we want to be effective.

Again, the “How” is covered in my books and on many websites. Now, I want to conclude by covering the


When and Who
Because of number of individuals suffering, and the horrific brutality they face, I firmly believe animal liberation is the moral imperative of our time. Looking back at the long arc of history over the millennia, I know animal liberation will come about as our ethics gradually continue to evolve.

Working along with the expansion of our ethics, capitalism – which brought us factory farming – will continue to squeeze the inefficiencies from food production. This will ultimately end the practice of feeding grain to animals first, and then eating a part of the animal. As we know, it is much more efficient, and cost-effective, to just eat foods made directly from the plants.

But when de facto animal liberation will finally occur is an open question. Will it be decades? Centuries?

The variable that will determine “When” is “Who.” Specifically: You. Specifically: Us.

In retrospect, the expansion of our ethics seems inevitable. But it didn’t just happen on its own. Countless individuals struggled and sacrificed over the centuries to bend the arc of history towards justice.

I know at times, things can appear to be so overwhelming as to be hopeless. It is easy to feel that we can’t make a difference.

But if there are just two things you take with you tonight, know

One: we are winning, and
Two: you really can make a difference.

I stopped eating animals over a quarter century ago. At the time, I never dreamed of restaurants like Veggie Grill or Native Foods. I never dreamed Bill Gates and other billionaires would be investing in vegan food companies. I never dreamed of presidents going vegan.

Click image for larger.

Most of all, I never dreamed the number of animals killed in this country would decline by hundreds of millions every year since 2006, even while the population increases. We’ve changed the world so much in the past 25 years – far more than I ever dreamed!

Veg food sampling.

The next 25 years could exceed our dreams even more! Of course, we are on the right side of history. But more importantly, we are stronger and much, much smarter. We are equipped with better tools and, a growing dedication to optimal advocacy.

And although big ag is ruthless to the animals, we are now just as relentless in our efforts for the animals.

More importantly, we are winning! It can take some perspective to see it, but the wind is at our backs and our sails are unfurling.

You can be a part of this! Your time and donations can now accomplish far more than they did 20 years ago.

I implore you to be a part of this work. You can bend the arc. You will change the world. And you will live a meaningful life alongside some of the best, most dedicated individuals who have ever lived.

Thank you so much.

Sexism part 1 (plus homophobia plus Jordan Peterson)

Over the Rhine - "Ohio"

When I was at the University of Cincinnati, I drove through Over the Rhine very often. 

Imagine if a dude in his 20s started a relationship with an 8th-grade boy, and then married as soon as the kid turned 18. It would be non-stop on the media as proof that "the gays" are "grooming" our children.

But this "pastor" can publicly celebrate his de facto pedophilia:

PS: How mentally ill is Jordan Peterson? Seriously - he needs help, not worshipful incels: