t is a simple fact about the world that we expect women to be more affectionate than men.  Women can sit closer together, hold hands for a length of time, and hug one another for just about any reason.  And there is a kind of tenderness that we associate more so with women than with men.  I do not how if we could or even should ever get rid of this difference.  But there is difference between women and men that I do not see disappearing no matter what, namely that men are far more vulnerable to the charge of sexual harassment than women.  There is a fascinating discussion of this by forensic psychologist Helen Smith at the blog entitled Dr. Helen: Percentage of Male Teachers Hit 40-Year Low. The blog is a reflection upon a report found at MSN.

Surely one part of the problem is that with good reason we generally associate rape and pedophilia with men rather than women.  But I actually do not think that this gets to the heart of the matter.  After all, theses associations have always been there, perhaps even more so in the past than now.  Yet, the suggestion is that men are more concerned now.  So, other factors have to be at play. 

As I reflect upon my six grade teacher, Mr. Owens, I do not think that there was ever any concern that he might act in an appropriate way towards us.  To this date, I have no sense that anything was ever amiss in his behavior.  But then those were simpler times and boundaries in general were much more well defined.  And this does shed some light on the matter.

We live in a terribly sexualized society.  Just about anything and everything is about sex.  Sex is flaunted nowadays.  Surely, elementary school students nowadays have an awareness about sexuality that I think that far surpasses what I even new existed when I was there age.  This simple truth is relevant because what we think is a possible course of action is very much tied to what, in the first place, the options are seen to be.  In a world in which all sorts of touches are now portrayed as sexual, if only because they are a way of leading to sex, then these forms of touching now stands as precisely the options regarding behavior that are presented to children. 

Against this backdrop, being a male elementary school teacher is rather akin to walking around with a keg of gunpowder on one’s should with a fuse waiting to be lit.  For the most innocent gesture can be interpreted by a child as sexual.  After all, the idea that anything can be about sex is surely one of the messages that society conveys.  At the very least everything is or could be a double entendre.  For an adult, a world full of sexual double entendres is one thing; for a child such a world really is a version of Pandora’s Box.

Child development best takes place against the backdrop of well-defined boundaries.  And it is precisely that backdrop that society has effectively destroyed.  The issue is not whether it is a good thing that we are more open and expressive about sex.  Well, yes.  Still, there is time and a place for everything. 

There is another factor that sheds some light on why men might have great concern about choosing the role of teacher. There are two parts here.  First, when an accusation of sexual impropriety is made nowadays the accused is typically seen as guilty until proven innocent.  The accused experiences what is tantamount to a public smear campaign as one news station after another repeatedly broadcasts the charge.  There is not an ounce of circumspection.  A further consideration is that we now live in a society in which making false charges is frequently seen as form of sadistic amusement and may be encourage by parents for purely malicious motives.  The mere dissatisfaction with a child’s grade might incline a child so to behave.  The idea of advancing one’s station by any means whatsoever is understood in an increasingly more literal sense.  Accordingly, ruining the reputation of a perfectly innocent person is merely seen doing what one has to do in order advance. 

I have given a three-prong account of the social backdrop of the male teacher in first and secondary schools.  Together, they stand as reason for any male to be extremely apprehensive about becoming a male teacher. 

Now, in commenting upon the blog entry, someone named Nicholas had this to say:

I'm a 28 year old male, just beginning a Masters program in Childhood Education, and I assure you, the bias against male teachers begins well before one actually begins teaching. One of the first courses I've been required to take is a Diversity class, and so far, it has been a virtual non-stop tirade against everything that men have ever done in this country. We have basically touched on nothing that would relate to teaching, instead, we focus on how men (particularly white, European men), have apparently been responsible for everything that is wrong in the world. If this is what I, and those like me, have to look forward too, it's no wonder there's such a stunning lack of diversity among teachers.

Ironically, they reinforce in a rather poignant way and at a more general level the point that I have made.  In human behavior, we often see what we looking for.  If whites are portrayed as always racist, then a pause can be seen as an instance of racism on the part of that white person.  By contrast, if blacks are portrayed as always dumb, then the same kind of pause can be seen as a sign that the black person is intellectually bereft.  And if we think that the person is brilliant, then the bespeaks none other than profundity of thought taking place.  Thus, it behooves us to be careful about how we characterize people and ethnic groups. 

In our rash mischaracterizations of people in order to suit our ideology, we often sow seeds of unwanted hostility and suspicion; and then we wonder we wonder how that despicable looking tree ever came into existence.  Alas, the answer is painfully simple: We planted the seed and then watered it aplenty. 

raise is wonderful  Just so, it makes all the difference who is doing the praising.  And it sometimes seems that silence is not just golden but an extraordinary moral virtue.  Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam sang the praises of Barack Obama at the annual Saviors’ Day Celebration.  And one might very well ask whether this is a blessing or a curse for Obama.  Farrakhan’s singing the praises of Obama is quite different from, say, Hugo Cévez’s doing so, although both have been terribly controversial. 

Cévez has been terribly anti-American.  Yet, he is not known for being either racist or anti-semitic as such.  He may think that Americans are all devils; and by this he really means that whites generally are devils.  But Cévez has never made the claim that he takes whites to be devils.  Alas, Minister Farrakhn has.  He is also the man who claimed that Judaism is gutter religion. 

Now, it seems that Farrakhan has mellowed in his later years.  He is now 74.  The vitriolic remarks against Jews and whites that once peppered his speeches were absent on this occasion.  And that is no doubt a good thing. 

The problem, alas, is this: Farrakhan has never really distanced himself from his vicious remarks against whites and Jews.  He has not done a moral turn-about in the way that George Wallace did.  Wallace’s life was clearly and demonstrably marked by two distinct periods: the segregationist Wallace versus the racial equality Wallace.  We have no such clear demarcation with Minister Farrakhan; and there is the rub. 

Now, Barack Obama has certainly kept his distance from Farrakhan.  But the real issue is whether or not Farrakhan should have kept his distance from Obama.  That is, should Farrakhan have kept his mouth shut because in singing the praises of Obama it turns out that Farrakhan does Obama more harm than good. 

This issue is not whether Farrakhan has the freedom to publicly endorse anyone he please.  Indeed, he does.  Rather, the issue is whether the moral baggage of his very own life makes his singing the praises of anyone a liability rather than an asset.  And I do mean: anyone.  Thus, the concern that I have raised would apply with equal forced had Farrakhan sang the praises of Hilary Clinton in his annual Saviors’ Day message rather than Barack Obama. 

If Farrakhan’s singing the praises of Obama constitutes a liability for Obama, then prudence ought to have counseled silence in this regard on Farrakhan’s part.  There is something mean-spirited and arrogant about Farrakhan not bearing in mind the reality that (i) his legacy as Minister of the Nation of Islam has hardly died and (2) his venomous hatred of whites and Jews is seen by all sorts of people as parallel to the venomous hatred on the part of Nazis of blacks and Jews.    

Free speech is one thing.  Prudence is quite another.  And prudence sometimes counsels us to refrain from doing what we have every right to do.  Farrakhan’s singing the praises of Obama could very well have people taking a second look at Obama with an eye towards discerning what it is that makes Obama attractive to Farrakhan of all people. 

Here are some of Farrakhan’s words at the Saviors’ Day speech:

This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better.  This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow.  If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed.

In glancing over those words, the first thing I wondered is whether Farrakhan was seeing the same images rallies for Obama that I was seeing.  For there have been lots and of whites attending those rallies.  Farrakhan did not mention this.  And it is not a good thing that he did not.  Indeed, why did he not think—as apparently he did not—that the presence of one white after another at rallies for Obama stand as an amazing sign that America has already shown an incredible transformation? 

After all, if Obama is going to get elected to the presidency, it most certainly will not be solely on the strength of yellow and black and brown votes.  Presumably, a lot of white devils—to use Farrakhan’s language—will have to vote for Obama.  This would have made it ever so prudent for Farrakhan to have added one more color to his panoply of colors. 

Minister Farrakhan’s enthusiasm for Barack Obama has not gone unnoticed, as a simple Google search will reveal.  And the fact that Obama has rushed to distance himself from Farrakhan’s remarks makes it clear that he sees Farrakhan’s laudatory words as a considerable liability. 

Insofar as Farrakhan really sees Obama as America’s savior, then Farrakhan is either a fool or a stridently arrogant person.  For it does not take great wisdom to grasp the the reality that a Farrakhan endorsement of Obama is about as counterproductive as smacking a spouse in the hopes of winning the person’s affection.  At least with the latter, there is the outside chance that the spouse is really into S & M.  But surely Farrakhan is no fool.  So, the idea that there might be a political analogue to S & M could not possibly been Farrakhan’s fallback strategy.  This leaves us with strident arrogance on Farrakhan’s, which would explain why he has never bothered to distance himself from his venomous past. 

very now and then, one reads a story that makes it unequivocally clear that things need to change.  The R. J. Feild story is a case in point.  Perhaps you know the story by now.  But it is worth briefly summarizing.  Feild was born addicted to heroin, because his mother was a drug addict who was on welfare.  Upon his birth, she abandoned him.  He beat the odds in every conceivable way.  His vision is so bad that he can barely read; only one hand is fully functional; and on a daily basis walking has is a formidable challenge for him.  In a single day, perhaps even a single moment, he experiences more adversity than most of his experience throughout most, if not all, of our lives.  But he is now 16-years old. 

Instead of wallowing in victimhood and self-pity, however, R. J. Feild has systematically forged ahead; and this 16-year old young man is now the brainstorm behind a new law that is being proposed in California. 

At the heart of the proposed law is an exceedingly simple principle, namely that insofar as people are on public assistance, then the state should ensure that they are bringing children into the world in a responsible way.  His proposal has three simple points:

(1)All welfare recipients should be randomly tested

(2) If they test positive, they should be offered help

(3) If they refuse to enter rehabilitation, then they should
  lose their benefits

This sounds an awful lot like commonsense.  The proposal is a marvelous mixture of both commonsense and compassion. 

It seems fair enough to say that the State should help those in dire need.  This counts as the virtue of appropriate compassion; and compassion has a proper place in a good society.  But in the absence of responsibility, the virtue of appropriate compassion becomes the vice of misplaced compassion.  Need does not constitute an excuse to be irresponsible.  And this holds all the more so when it comes to parenting. 

s it really possible that machines could match man in a mere 21 years, as Ray Kurzweil claims in a BBC article?  And mind you, Kurzweil does not mean merely the capacity of human beings to calculate things and make educated guesses based upon probabilities.  He also means our emotional intelligence as well, where emotional intelligence is to be contrasted with raw intellectual ability.  Kurzweil rightly points out that machines already do lots of things better than human beings do them.  It is striking for instance just how far a computer can go in flying a jumbo jet.  Indeed, many landings in dense fog or heavy winds would be extremely difficult to pull off were it not for computers. 

Now, it is rather striking that Kurzweil insists that machines are not going to overtake and replace humanity.  It is not clear how he can reassure us in this regard, given his claim that machines will be our match on all fronts. 

But is Kurzweil’s confidence that machines will match human beings by 2029, even at the level of emotional intelligence, a bit premature.  I think so.  And if that is right, then machines may miss the mark in other areas of human intelligence as well. 

I wonder what evidence does he have that machines will match our emotional intelligence in a mere 20 years.  I have certainly not encountered anything that would suggest that this is the case—not even the machines that capture speech.  I have just called my Verizon telephone company and to the computer’s request to state my telephone number, I responded with a certain sternness “I don’t give a damn”.  I did so twice.  I then hung.  Upon calling back, I proceeded a little further as requested, I entered my phone number, and was then asked for another piece of information.  To that I responded: “You may go to hell”.  And to that utterance on my part, the computer responded: “That is 880, right?”

Perhaps in another three or four years from now, the computer will be offended and will respond with something like “You may kiss my nuts and bolts, you despicable instance of what they call a human being”. 

My point, of course, is that machines do not even come close to matching the emotional intelligence of human beings, even with something as simple as the utterance of hostile phrases. 

To take a different example pertaining to feelings, consider the sentiment of gratitude.  What makes gratitude so interesting is that it often has little to do with the monetary value of what was done or given and everything to do with the spirit with which the thing was done or given.  I have no idea how a machine is ever going to mirror this sentiment, let alone what kind of interaction with a computer would be necessary in order for that kind of gratitude on a computer’s part to be forthcoming. 

But now suppose that a machine could be offended or could mirror the sentiment of gratitude found in humans.  Then on the basis of what does Kurzweil claim that machines will not replace humans, given that machines can also match the intellectual intelligence of human beings? 

Now, I think that because machines are a very long ways of matching the emotional intelligence of human beings, then it is also the case that there are some fundamental aspects of intellectual intelligence that machines cannot equal.  What comes immediately to mind is imagination. 

Strikingly, imagination is often fueled by emotions.  Surely some of the greatest instances of poetry ever written were fueled by the experience of love.  The same holds for many, many songs.  And many majestic instances of behavior that have inspired the world are fueled by the emotions.  We have Helen Keller and Erik Weihenmayer, two blind people who displayed so much hope that they did the “impossible”.  And we have Raoul Wallenberg whose sense of justice moved him to risk his life in order to save numerous Jews. 

Is Ray Kurzweil suggesting that in a mere 21 years machines will be equaling human beings in these ways? 

Then there is the downside of things.  Bitterness and revenge have been the seed of enormous damage between human beings.  As we all know, holding a grudge is an art form for some individuals.  If machines will match the emotional intelligence of human beings in 2029, then it follows that machines will exhibit these hostile sentiments as well.  And if that is so, then once more the question arises: And why exactly is it that we would not have to fear machines taking over and replacing human beings? 

Kurzweil is a very, very bright man.  One can rightly wonder to what extent is he being merely hyperbolic.  As far as I can tell, though, he is being quite genuine.  If so, then the problem would appear to be that he is more than a little besotted by the success of technology thus far. 

No one can doubt that technological success has been exponential.  And while it is manifestly clear that machines can surpass human beings in terms of sheer powers of calculation, the sobering truth is that the reality of human beings is not even close to being exhausted by their powers of calculation.  Indeed, the evil that continues to plague the world and the absence of commonsense among human beings both serve as proof par excellence that powers of calculation do not exhaust human reality. 

The human being is a multifarious creature.  And we must be very careful not to focus upon one thing and then suppose that we have captured the essence of what it means to be a human being.  For in the end, so many of those other things are an ineliminable part of what it means to be a human being. 

Alas, Ray Kurzweil’s optimism underscores the point.  Do we want machines that can exhibit the optimism that Kurzweil exhibits?  I should think not.  For part of their reliability is tied to the fact that they do not.  There is no evidence that we are even close to having machines like that.  But if we are close to having such machines, then Kurzweil is absolutely wrong: We would have good reason to be rather concerned that our creation, namely machines, might occasion our demise.

ne never knows what group of people will take themselves a little too seriously.  One can find an association for just about anything.  There is the morally despicable group NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association).  And then there is NAAFA.  Did I mean  "NAACP"?  Not at all.  The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance is a real association,.  Though undoubtedly NAAFA’s name draws its inspiration from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the differences between the two organizations are real enough.  NAAFA’s statement of purpose reads as follows:

Founded in 1969, the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance is a non-profit human rights organization dedicated to improving the quality of life for fat people. NAAFA works to eliminate discrimination based on body size and provide fat people with the tools for self-empowerment through public education, advocacy, and member support.

There is, of course, a respect in which NAAFA is quite right.  People should be respected regardless of their body-type.  It is simply a fact that we are not all beautiful.  Likewise, it is simply fact that we are not all intellectually gifted.  And in the same vein, it is a fact that we are not all thin.  Nonetheless, there is no getting around the truth that we are all deserving of basic respect, equal treatment, and general politeness from others. 

If the above were NAAFA’s position, then I would find NAAFA’s aims most acceptable and appropriate.  Indeed, I could even be tempted to join it or, in any case, to deem the association worthy of a charitable donation. 

I take it to be true that no one deserves to be the object of abject ridicule simply on account of her or his size.  Fat people, no more than midgets, are not the exception to this rule.  But from none of this does it follow that being fat is a good thing, and that we should simply be accepting of it. 

What is true, to be sure, is that there is a fine line between encouraging persons to reduce their body size and not being respectful of them.  And if NAAFA had drawn attention to this truth, while offering helpful suggestions in this regard, that would have been wonderful. 

The group proposes that we stop using the terms “obesity” and “obese” in reference to children.  There are many respects in which I find this quite acceptable if only because children are quite fragile.  Not only that, in most cases the problem lies with the parents rather than with the children.  But surely our aim should be to help children lose their obesity.  Yet, this aim is not one that NAAFA advances. 

Again, the proposed law for the State of Mississippi that would require restaurants to refuse service to obese people is just plain ludicrous.  The proposed law, House Bill 282, is fraught with so many difficulties that one has to suppose that it was only for symbolic measures that the bill was introduced.  In any case, NAAFA rightly opposes it.

But where NAAFA has simply missed the mark is in its idea that obesity should simply be accepted in precisely the same way that ethnic differences should be accepted.  The comparison flounders from the very start, since being of one ethnic kind or another is not a health hazard to anyone, anywhere. 

Obesity is not just a different body size.  It is a body size that is quite injurious to a person’s health.  In one respect, I am prepared to say that adults can do pretty much what they want to do with their bodies. But children are another matter.  For their own health and well-being, both in the present and in the future, we should certain encourage children to lose their obesity.  And it is NAAFA’s failure to see this that makes it a somewhat despicable organization. 

Given two equally talented potential employees, one clearly obese and one clearly not obese, an employer would be a fool merely to flip a coin.  For there are health risks, and so costs, that come with the obese one merely in virtue of the person's obesity that do not come with the one who is clearly not obese.  This is obvious that one cannot say "Two equally talented potential employees . . . who are also equally healthy".   It does not follow from this, though, that an obese person who is hired should be harrassed and ridiculed; and I have not initimated any such thing.   

NAAFA’s motto reads:

We Come In All Sizes...
Understand it.
Support it.
Accept it.

To say that we should accept obesity is akin to saying that we should accept (read: embrace) self-destructive behavior (on the part of those who have control over their body size).  That is an absurdity which brings into to sharp relief the truth that the parallel between obesity as merely a different body size and ethnic differences is rather bankrupt.  We may acknowledge that people have the right to engage in self-destructive behavior.  No such acknowledgment entails that we should embrace such behavior as a good thing for anyone to pursue. 

It is simply not a good thing for anyone to be obese.  And in general, it is the result of poor eating and health habits.  Nothing should make us lose sight of these two truths.  It is woefully disingenuous either to claim or to suggest otherwise.  And to do so when it comes to children is to proffer what can only be countenanced as an ignoble lie.

Still, I am mindful of the fact that we should always be respectful of others.  Rather than pretending that obesity is akin to an ethnic type, which is woefully misguided, NAAFA could be putting its resources to much better use by proffering insight into how we can be respectful to those who are obese all the while fighting against willful obesity.  That, alas, would be progress. 

ow should we understand the comparison between John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama?  I have no interest in making invidious comparisons between the two.  Rather, I wish to draw attention to a fundamental difference in the mindset of the Kennedy era and the mindset of the present era in which Obama is operating.  As we all know, Kennedy is the man who exclaimed “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask you can do for your country”.     What is significant is that no one thought for a moment that Kennedy had said anything foolish.  Quite the contrary, those words profoundly resonated with nearly every American who heard them. 

Fast forward a mere 40 years, and one gets a very different world.  While Kennedy is still regarded by all as an American hero, that marvelous utterance by him that everyone is so fond of recalling simply does not resonate with the American people as it once did.  And the explanation for that is quite simple: America has evolved from a society of people who were willing to sacrifice for the greater good—at least in principle—to a society of people concerned only with their entitlements.  Everyone is entitled to everything, be they American citizens or illegal immigrants.  And the very idea of a greater good for which all should be willing to make a sacrifice—each according to his abilities, if I may invoke Marx in an unusual way—has all but disappeared from the social and political landscape. 

Indeed, the political rhetoric of the moment is about making promises of one benefit after another, be it health or education or driver licenses to illegal immigrants.  And of course: it goes without saying that each and every person is entitled to the benefit in question. 

What politician has asked Americans to make sacrifices of any sort for the greater good?  The deafening answer: Not a single one.  And surely one explanation for this is that such a demand would undoubtedly occasion indignation on the part of the listeners.  And that is precisely what one would expect in America-the-Land-of-Entitlement.  And it is precisely this sense of entitlement that made absolutely no sense to the people of Kennedy’s era.  Indeed, the thought was that we all benefited by working for the greater good.  The thought was not that the greater good is rather like manna that falls from the sky because we are all God’s children. 

So when it is claimed that Obama calls to mind the legacy of John F. Kenney—a claim embraced by members of the Kennedy family, what we have is in fact a rather misleading claim. 

It may be true that Obama invites us to dream of change.  There is no evidence thus far, however, that this change involves Americans being willing to sacrifice for the greater good; and in the absence of this key component, the comparison between Obama and Kennedy is not as apt as many would suggest. 

This is not a criticism of Obama.  He is under no obligation to be like Kennedy.  Not only that, it is wrong to require him to live in the shadow of Kennedy.  But insofar as he and his supporters are prepared to bask in the comparison, and thus the claim that he is a modern-day JFK, then we are entitled to examine whether that comparison really is apt.  Thus far, the verdict is clear: Obama is no Kennedy.  Kennedy’s words were a call to excellence—and not just a call to dream of entitlements.