Gerry Canavan

the smartest kid on earth

Tuesday

with 6 comments

* Blasphemy! Mattel is changing the rules of Scrabble to allow proper nouns.

Towards a theory of erotic capital.

* Allen sends along three articles from the Chronicle of Higher Education on the disastrous job market in the humanities:

* Frank Donoghue: An Open Letter From a Director of Graduate Admissions.
* Peter Conn: We Need to Acknowledge the Realities of Employment in the Humanities.
* Lee S. Shulman: Doctoral Education Shouldn’t Be a Marathon.

Now I’m depressed.

* Ambinder has more SCOTUS speculation, explaining Obama’s likely strategy and why Elena Kagan is widely believed to be the frontrunner for the nomination.

* ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009 on $45.2 billion in profit. Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid the same amount between 1998 and 2005.

* The West Virginia mining disaster that has killed at least 25 people appears to have been caused in part by corporate neglect of safe conditions.

* Frum: Don’t listen to Fox. Coburn: Don’t listen to Fox. Good advice.

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It’s unclear yet how much the disaster can really be “caused” by Massey’s cavalier interpretations of the law, just cause we don’t know the facts yet. But Massey and their CEO, Don Blankenship, bring a special kind of talent to the endeavor. In a memo Blankenship wrote in wrote 2005, for example, he said:

    “If any of you have been asked by your group presidents, your supervisors, engineers or anyone else to do anything other than run coal (I.e. build overcasts, do construction jobs, or whatever) you need to ignore them and run coal. This memo is necessary only because we seem not to understand that coal pays the bills.”

    And in a followup memo, he clarified that:

    “The point is that each of you is responsible for coal producing sections, and our goal is to keep them running coal. If you have construction jobs at your mine that need to be done to keep it safe or productive, make every effort to do those jobs without taking members and equipment from the coal producing sections that pay the bills.”

    zunguzungu

    April 6, 2010 at 1:32 pm

  2. “Erotic capital helps explain why, according to Ms Hakim, “mail-order brides” who arrive in the US without money, contacts, or credentials quickly gain a position of equality in their marriages.”

    what the hell?

    kate

    April 6, 2010 at 4:25 pm

  3. “”From the abstract: Women generally have more erotic capital than men because they work harder at it.”

    No, women have more erotic capital because erotic capital has traditionally been the only arena they had in which to participate and compete, and because of scarcity, not because they “work harder at it.” This is possibly the most stupid thing I’ve ever seen written.”

    kate

    April 6, 2010 at 4:33 pm

  4. Mattel only has the rights to sell Scrabble outside the US and Canada; Hasbro has the North American rights. So I wonder if the rule change affects all versions or just the Mattel versions.

    Neil

    April 6, 2010 at 4:59 pm

  5. “… women’s new advantage …”
    i do not understand how this is an advantage or a special “skill” that women have that gives them a head start or anything of the sort.

    “Studies of lawyers reveal that there is always a premium for attractiveness that varies in size, but is not due to employer discrimination. The most attractive can earn 12 per cent more than the unattractive, and are 20 per cent more likely to achieve partnership in their firm, because they are more effective at pulling in customers.”
    the same would be true of race (that white people are going to earn more for a company cause everyone loves white people) but that doesn’t make it not discrimination. ??

    “I do not understand why she seems to advertise self-grooming as a good alternative to a university degree, especially for women.”
    MTE. & that does seem to be what this “theory” is trying to say: that people are judged on their appearances, that people should enhance their appearances to get ahead, and that this specific variety of cultural capital is EXTRA GREAT FOR LADIES because women are just so great at maximizing their eroticism. what?

    “The bottom line is that “erotic capital” is all about others’ perceptions of women, rather than about things women themselves can do or acquire. That’s the main reason “soft power” isn’t real power — because when your influence is based on someone else’s desire, he’s the one who’s really in control.”
    you’ve got it, jezebel.

    pretty much what this commenter says:
    “Whoa, why does anyone think this is a good thing?
    Any subordinate group needs to use wiles in order to negotiate power with the dominant group. They do this by making the dominant group feel like they have power though quiet manipulations. If the subordinate group displays power outright they are shunned (or thought of as not womanly), while women who play into the subordinate stereotype is praised for being a clever woman. It’s all about negotiations, women try to take the power they have, unfortunately doing that can sometimes just reinforce gender roles.

    I am so fucking sick of dudes who claim that women have so much power because of their sexuality, women are more than their fucking bodies.”

    “Hakim claims that feminists have not only ignored erotic capital but suppressed it in such a way that actually empowers the very patriarchal attitudes they oppose. With the exception of radical feminism and some aspects of postmodern feminism, this is true. I have long felt that focusing on inequities in life only serves to perpetuate them and takes up energy that could be used for positive change.”
    ???? but postmodern feminism is ridiculous and radfeminism has many problems.

    “In a recent conversation about who should pay for dinner on a heterosexual date, a friend commented, “If the guy isn’t paying, he isn’t getting laid. At least not like he should be.””
    but why is this an example of women’s “power”?

    Kate

    April 6, 2010 at 6:16 pm

  6. Turns out the rules of scrabble are not changing. It’s a different game called “Scrabble Trickster”. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-20001840-52.html

    Alex

    April 6, 2010 at 8:15 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,041 other followers

%d bloggers like this: