Why everyone should be a feminist

In my previous post I proposed that there is inequality which disadvantages all women around the globe. Anyone not wanting to change that situation seems irrational, or self-serving and hence morally blameworthy. Since this situation affects half of the Earth's population the matter is urgent, that is why it merits its own treatment.

Why should everyone accept that this is so?

Well, we know at the moment the following: We know that there is inequality that we can all agree is wrong. Namely:

- Income inequality: women doing the same job get lower salaries in many places.

- Chance inequality: often when admitting students or hiring applicants for a job male's are preferred, even if there is no other relevant differentiating detail in the applicants' CVs.

- Recognitional inequality: women get promotions and favourable performance reviews less often. This even happens - sadly - when women rate women, or for example when students rate teachers and lecturers.

- Inequalities in further gender-role based expectations: it is widely different how much work is expected from a woman to be spent raising her children, cleaning, and providing other essentials for her family. On top of this in many societies there are further unequally spread expectations such caring for the elderly and the sick, playing community roles, or being physically attractive.

To the last inequality some people object: but there is a similar expectation towards man, just look at the fact that handsome man are on TV and in ads. But this argument is wrong because it mixes up two things: it is very different that some people (among them some women) enjoy, and on men expecting women to look good. This is especially salient, because for women looks are often less important in choosing partners, whereas men sometimes 'punish' women on the basis of their looks, going even as far as to leave them, or making employment, promotions, and so on conditional on appearances.

All the above listed are inequalities between men and women that are proven, that have been measured and observed in experiments, and can be read off from economic data. It is certainly obvious to any grownup that this situation needs to be changed.

With this, I’m not saying that woman should not care about their looks, not have children, etc. but that this should be in their freedom to choose, and not what is expected of them to be prioritized. I’m sure many would choose to those these things, as these activities can be very joyful, rewarding, fulfilling, etc. for some people, and there is nothing wrong with them in themselves. What is wrong if someone chooses these activities because they are made to believe that that’s the only right thing to do and they should choose it otherwise something is wrong with them.

Of course as with any problem that is very large scale we should look at the causes of the problem. As with other social-psychological large scale problems there are social structural problems in the background. Most plausibly the factors are that: 

- Girls are not encouraged to follow certain career paths, and life-way, and to also experiment with new life paths, and

- women are given role models and feedback that prioritizes the traditional gender behavior, plus

- there is a lack of viable role models and alternatives, a lack of support for these, and a lot of punitive political and social action and feedback if one tries to step out of line.

- Add on top of this that due to implicit bias even people and organizations who are consciously and explicitly committed to equality make sometimes biased judgments.

What we need to do is to provide choices, and a range of role models, and to protect those who are punishing women for following their own paths. Just as a man nowadays one can aim at becoming a good father, an astronaut (the most boring example of aiming high), a lawyer, an electrician, and a nurse; a carer, an artist, a dancer, a bachelor, a family man, a community fighter, a lone wolf, etc. so all options should be open and the same should be available for any woman. And just as all these different types of men are cheered on, and there are people who reassure them that they are filling in a role that is needed, that they are making the right choices, so, women need the same kind of assurance, whatever track they choose, and whichever way they go.

There are some important mistakes that need to be avoided while giving positive feedback. One of them is essentialism, the idea that there is some element of the traditional gender role that has to be maintained to be still a woman. This mistaken notion has had harmful effects already in many cases in the last 40 years. Just look at supposedly ‘empowering’ videos featuring woman who train hours every day and appear in the videos dancing in minimal clothing  - reinforcing one of the most harmful stereotypes that being attractive sexually is what being a woman is - and perform stereotypical male actions like handling power tools, fighting and shooting, taking revenge, driving sports cars, and so on.

What would be needed instead would be the message that "Hey, you men – most of you – aren’t like that either, and I don’t need to be like a man anyway. I’m happy to let go of the traditional woman package too: I don’t have to be sexy, and I don’t have to wield power tools or be a top business executive. I can be an okay lawyer or counselor, or ... whatever! I can have my average business dealing in whatever I know about, I can write books or pretty much do whatever I want. I can identify with whatever I want, and I can change. If I want to be like that I will be." Of course I'm not advocating radical individualism or that in making up one's mind about how one should live one shouldn't take into consideration one's family, loved ones, and community. But not in the way that one only thinks of the ways one could contribute to the life of others as people living in more rigid times did.

 

Of course in some cases there might be people who can 'max out' both the requirements of the traditional male and female stereotype. But that to me seems overly ambitious taken that most of us don’t even succeed in either one of those two categories even when some of us try. What seems to be much saner is to treat these options as a basket into which one puts what one can identify with – this can change as life goes on. Of course commitments have to be taken seriously and people should be encouraged to foster their skills, talents, work hard, help others, raise amazing kids and so on – but not to do all these things at the same time. 

The mistake of pushing woman to pursue corporate and top-manager careers at all costs definitely has to be avoided. Liberation is not to have to be like some of the most competitive, stressed, overworked and sometimes unscrupulous man. And it definitely isn't being like that, plus taking upon oneself to also tick the boxes of fitting the traditional women-roles. One should not be forbidden to achieve such things, but no one should be expected to accomplish such crazy feats which are not good for employers, persons, and kids in most cases. 

So, what needs to be done? Our communities need to provide more support and give more trust to woman whatever their goals and pursuits are. We need to provide girls with many options. Whatever they want to keep or reject from the traditional ‘woman’ package, and whatever else they won’t to buy into, they need to be encouraged to give it their best and figure out if it fits them.

As I said, getting rid of inequality is not taking on elements of the traditional male package or combining those elements with traditional female elements. This also calls for work-place reform: workplaces and environments shouldn’t be built to suit mostly guys, and then claim that they are women friendly if a woman can adjust and get along in them. That’s not equality, that’s expecting women to take on traditional male roles.

What’ better is to offer more employment flexibility: 4 and 6 hours positions, work from home options, opportunities to learn and stay engaged and connected while at home with children and return later, etc. There is nothing necessary in constantly prioritizing people in jobs who are 100% percent devoted to their workplace. While this might be good in short term profits for bigger companies in large economies, it surely isn’t good in the long term. Humans live in states partly to foster happiness and cooperation, not the operations of super-wealthy individuals owning companies. And surely not, that companies can make profits on employing unhappy, unsatisfied, and unhealthy, overstressed people.

Companies get away with these things too easily: they focus on profits, and that is said to be okay in capitalism. Nobody seems to notice that companies only get the best of the employees and state services and communities bear the burden of dealing with stressed, burnt out, disillusioned individuals. Capitalism is not a higher order system when compared with a society, and its demands should not be placed higher than those of communities of humans.

This proposal is in my opinion a modest feminist proposal with which everyone could get on board. It focuses on eradicating striking inequalities as well as their roots. It does not propose that people of either gender should rule or dominate the other gender, nor that one or the other gender is better. People of both genders show a striking variety of emotion, thought, taste, and preferences in lifestyles. Why is it that men can tolerate this in each other but not in women? Once we let go of the notion that there is one type of women it will also be easier for men: just treat women as people, as persons who might or might not like different things, who think this or that way. You can ask questions, find these things out, get to know them, talk with them and so on. Don’t stress about figuring out some supposedly existent female mystique, or getting right 'what women want'. It is as different as what we guys want. I guess you will find that you can even have female friends, because, guess what: they have thoughts, ideas, can be fun, and are interesting.

A pitch for a feminism everyone should be able to get on board with

The version of feminism I would like to propose is not original, in fact, I think it is the most common and sensible version of it, accepted by many feminists across the globe. I write about it only because many people enjoy to misinterpret or misrepresent feminism as a silly or a radical or an incoherent position. I think it is neither of it. In fact, I don't know how anyone can not be a feminist.

In this version feminism is a political and economic position. The position claims that there is inequality in economic terms and terms of personal freedom. The position recommends to eradicate this inequality. Why is there a need for feminism besides other movements opposing all forms or particular forms of inequality (e.g. striking international and intranational income inequality, rights abuses against minorities, etc.)? Because this inequality affects half of the global population and would be very easy to overcome. Specific and quick action should and can be taken.

Naoki Higashida's 'The Reason I Jump'

I've just finished this interesting little book by Japanese youngster Higashida Naoki, The Reason I Jump. Naoki is a person who lives with autism and the book tells about some of his experiences. He was very young when the book was born, in his early teens, and he wrote it with the help of his carer, Ms. Suzuki using a special method of pointing out hiragana on a paperboard.

The book has a surprising structure: A question is posed, and then Naoki gives an answer to it. The answer is followed by some reasons and explanation, and usually a closing thought. These question-answer sections are each 1-2 pages long, and they make up the book.

I found two aspects of the book enlightening: one is, that Naoki emphasizes and convincingly argues that many people with autism are aware of how hard it can be for others to live with them and are as 'smart' as others. Don't think Rainman-kind of genius, just think everyday-smart, understanding what others would expect and how they feel when their expectations are repeatedly frustrated. The other is useful aspect of the book was that Naoki provides many reasons why people with autism engage in certain types of behavior that can seem irrational, such as jumping up and down, moving their hands in front of their eyes, etc. The book does a good job in general in shedding light on why some such behavior is pleasant or hard to avoid for many people living with autism.

Obviously, Naoki is very high-functioning, and has sophisticated social skills. He also comes across as a considerate and polite person - this is I imagine partly how he is, and partly the result of growing up in a Japanese household.

The book is certainly worth a reading, whether one is simply interested in autism, one works on autism or with people with autism, or has relatives with autism. It can offer something to everyone. Due to my research interests I found most fascinating the parts where Naoki describes the distress caused to him when he compulsively acts on motivations that he can't identify with, that don't seem to him to belong to him. These are very complex cases of dissociation between the factors moving one to behave in a certain way, and one's evaluations and preferences of options.

The book is available in a good translation, edited further by David Mitchell. It reads easily, and is very personal. I recommend it.

On the road back to feudalism

There is a gruesome trend we can observe: economic inequality is starkly on the rise in every country on Earth and fundamentalist, radical parties are gaining more and more following.

Just one example of the many horrors to which this leads is the fact that ISIS is now holding 50000 civilians hostage. They are ready to do anything they can to preserve their power. That means, they are ready to kill 50000 non-combatant innocent civilians to cause the enemy to suffer heavier losses. Why would anyone want a power like ISIS to rule over themselves? Why would anyone support an organization that is willing to sacrifice so many people in such a horrible way?

Many of those people in Fallujah will lose their father, mother, children, sister and brothers. Many of them will burn alive, will be shot, will blow into pieces, will be reduced to bloody blobs, will suffer horrible agonizing slow deaths, will be handicapped for the rest of their lives, will suffer incredible traumas. Who wants that? Who supports such a power?

We see far-right leaning nationalist dictators and autocrats on the rise elsewhere too: just consider Putin's new solidified might in Russia, Trump's candidacy and his atrocious way of thinking, Orban in Hungary where he is bartering with the Russians to get into a position where he can get away with corruption in the EU, or Xin's iron-fisted rule in China.

The serious problem is that Russia, the US, China, and even tiny Hungary, have better organized systems of rule and military in place than ISIS. These are solid nation states. That means that if the wrong people get in power they can become even more dangerous, as we can see this in the case of the Chinese party's rule in China. Censorship is extremely strong, most people are fed government designed news, they don't have access to critical voices, there is no option to changing and ousting people from the rule who are not doing well and not acting in the interests of their people.

We see clearly that economic inequality is on the rise globally. The rich are in control of more and more land, more and more companies, and have massive clout and powerful tools to pressure and influence governments.

Add to this that in the EU and the US many are turning back towards a repressive and outdated - not to mention factually wrong - religious fundamentalism.

It is almost as is if we would be on the way back to Feudalism, where the rich landowners own the lands of their vassals who in change serve them, and also own the land and means by which the rest of us can work. They command armies, and are only responsible towards themselves.

An important point about homosexuality

Many people who oppose homosexuality focus on sex. They argue on the basis that sex between members of the same sex is against the Bible/not natural/doesn't lead to procreation/etc.

I find this approach absolutely misleading. The focus shouldn't be on sex. The focus should be on the fact that someone who is a homosexual wants to have a nice conversation, trust, go home to, plan their life with, laugh and do crazy fun stuff with, enjoy themselves, tinker on their cars, go for a run, listen to music, and so on, with someone of their sex. When they imagine who they want to have that very special emotional and intellectual bond, that trust, that passion, devotion, friendship, they imagine it with someone who is of their sex. Bodily sex, bodily attraction naturally comes with this tendency, but we shouldn't get stuck on it.

If anyone finds something wrong with such desires for companionship, for recognition, for love, for trust, then they have something against homosexual couples, but then they also have something against any other couple that is in love, that is together, that is going out.

Some misunderstandings around war, WWII, and using nuclear bombs

The Onion ran a short piece on Obama's visit to Hiroshima.

Some not too smart US citizens took it seriously. I tried to comment - and might have been too sarcastic - to shed some light of their confusions.

One of them lectured me in a very misguided way then. Obviously, he hasn't read anything about history, about war, military strategy, economy, diplomacy, or politics. This is not a problem: most people don't have time and energy to do that. They work, care for their family, spend time with their friends, and are good people.
This doesn't change the fact that someone who does not know even the basics about the topic should not lecture anyone else about it. So: please take the following discussion as an example of what popular misunderstanding not to repeat and believe, and on how to separate issues more finely to understand them better. I'm a pro, I have been trained to do this kind of thinking, this is part of my job, and I'm happy to do it. I don't want to offend you or lecture you, I want to help everyone see clearer.



Here is his message:
"Sorry Steve, but I understand WW2 and firebombing both. The Japanese were Hitlers buddies, along with Russia - going to divide the world between themselves after they killed most of us. Well - too damn bad they got nuked. Haven't you ever studied what the allies found after the war? Americans being experimented on, with body parts removed. The Japanese dissected Americans, while keeping them alive in vats. Almost all were mercy killed by Allied troops. That doesn't even cover what the Germans did. You obviously don't know much about the cultures of the time. Besides, war isn't fair.. It's kill them - before they kill you."


And here are the corrections:

"Hi YY,

You are mixing up a number of issues.
1. You are mixing up a) whether dropping the nukes were justified, and b) whether the firebombing was justified.
2. You also mix up whether a) the nukes were justified, and b) whether Japan had to be defeated,
and
3. You mix up the a) ambitions of Japan, with b) the ambitions of Germany,
and also
4. You mix up a) the goals of a very small number of extreme radical Germans (and maybe Japanese?) with b) the goals of the fairly sane but too ambitious military of b1) Japan, and what is again a separate issue of b2) Germany.

Now first of all:
I) No matter what a country's government does, and no matter what a country's military leadership does, is it justified to drop nuclear bombs.
II) By the time the US leadership decided to drop the nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima the US leadership knew both that a) Japan would not be able to continue the war and would eventually surrender, and b) that most of the casualties would be civilians.




Next: Did either the German, or the Japanese government or military leadership plan to 'kill us all' as you say. The answer is no. The Germans had plans to eradicate masses of Jewish people, homosexual people, people with mental and bodily disabilities, and Slavic people. But that's it.
The Japanese people didn't have any such ambitions. Mixing up the German cause of eliminating Jews with the military-medical experiments that one secret and special Japanese military unit carried out is a big mistake.

Next: You say war isn't fair. Well think of it this way: It is US policy since many years ago that if any of the resource supplies of the US are threatened - meaning also: if any country doesn't want to sell something to the US - then that is to be treated as a threat to national security, and hence as a military issue.
I think that isn't a very good principle, but it is what the US follows.
The Japanese government followed the same principle when it bomber Pearl Harbor. The bombing followed years of strategic manouvering by the US government and military which aimed at cutting off the Japanese from crucial resources and supplies. If you take the US principle as the standard, the Japanese were justified in taking the US to be their enemies and attack them.

You also say the following: The Germans, the Japanese, and the Russians were going to divide the world between themselves. This is wrong again. The Germans and the Japanese were fighting against the Russians.
They both lost in the war. The world hence got divided between the US, Russia (or rather the Soviet Union) and the European powers. I don't necessarily think that this was a very bad consequence overall, although it had some horrible results in Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, etc. I do think on the other hand that what you are saying is that only evil powers divide the world between themselves.
Well, let me tell you something: all powers are trying to dominate, the US included. The US follows a very well and carefully planned policy of keeping its borders safe, and also having allies on the other side of the oceans. Hence its alliance with the EU, and with Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Australia. The US is not a benevolent, kind might. It is a well led huge power. When the interests of the US were threatened it stepped in with its military and didn't shy away from killing in other countries, from waging war, from killing civilians and from using torture to obtain military intelligence. It is not a saintly power, just as Germany and Japan weren't.

Also: You don't understand much about war. No sane politician or military leader aims solely at killing. They aim at winning a war. A war is won when the opponent sees that they can't continue. For this you don't have to kill their entire population. That would be a crime against humanity, no matter which country would do it. You aim at weakening the other country's infrastructure, its production lines, its access to natural resources (iron, oil, etc.), and its military. You don't aim at killing.

You might want to listen to the interview with Robert McNamara 'The Fog of War', you read the book on Japan by Ian Buruma titled 'Inventing Japan', and read in general more about history, politics, economy, and war."

The GOP, Republicans, and free market capitalism

The GOP's website features under the 'Republican Platform' the programme Restoring the American Dream: Economy and Jobs. Under subsection heading 'Job Creation: Getting Americans back to work' we find a long tirade about how everyone will be better off thanks to some - unexplained - 'roaring' economic growth. The paragraph ends by saying "Republicans will pursue free market policies that are the surest way to boost employment and create job growth and economic prosperity for all."

Sure this is an empty promise. But beyond that it is also widely deceiving. What we see these days is that the distance between the wealthiest people in society and the most disadvantaged ones is bigger than before WWI, when many Europeans countries still had Aristocrats who fell under different rules. This enormous level of inequality is coupled with i) housing problems, ii) rising rent levels, iii) rising debt levels, iv) governments cutting down on social services, education, and health services. These processes together lead to even more suffering and vulnerability for the majority of people.

What the Republicans are proposing is to make this situation even worse. The problem with the current, heavily de-regulated US and European free market economies is not that they don't offer chances, options, or freedom to choose one's jobs. The problem is that thanks to the deregulation most people who don't have extensive financial resources - and that is the majority of society - don't have viable options that would allow them to i) pay for their rent/mortgage, ii) make savings, iii) educate their children, iv) pay their bills in case of healthcare relate bigger expenses. What the Republicans are proposing is to exacerbate this situation. The owners of companies, factories, etc. will be able to offer even more demeaning, predatory, and exploitative work arrangements. I don't think there is anything compelling in voting for such a party.
 

On Angela Kiss's 'How to be an Alien in England'

I picked up Kiss's book with some excitement: she is a contemporary female writer, working as an accountant, and a Hungarian, writing about her expat experiences in the UK. I put down the book with a bit annoyed. Altogether, I would give it 2 stars out o 5, if I would give stars. Here is why.

In her book Kiss is into what was a very popular genre from the Romantic age up to the late 1980's: giving a national characterology. She is trying to do it in a funny way, but the book does not give one enough info to discern what Kiss actually finds true and how much of her bafflement concerning British habits is genuine, and how much is adopted for comical effect. Some of the jokes are good, some of the stories are cute, but altogether the material is too thin. Where it isn't too thin it commits one of two other mistakes: 1) It relies too heavily on the same jokes, and 2) it doesn't recognize when being puzzled why another culture stops being funny. The first of these two issues becomes apparent after page 30 where she can only keep the narrative flowing by making more and more ridiculous overstatements, which, naturally, become less and less entertaining, and don't provide any actual insight either into her experiences in Britain as an East-European, nor into what the Brits are like in their daily interactions.
The second issue is very bothersome and irritating on many points of the book: Kiss seems simply to have assumed that her way of doing and understanding things is obviously correct, since it makes sense to her. That's fine so far, but then she assumes that different ways of doing things not only not make sense to her but they can't make sense at all. She doesn't even entertain the idea that there might be different ways of going about one's life and looking at things. Or at least she doesn't show any sign which would indicate that she understands this.

Reading the book reminded of an important difference between comedians. Some of them are really funny to listen to for a few minutes, and they can be downright brilliant in short sketches. Still, if one has to listen to them for more than 5 minutes it becomes apparent that what seemed to be depth or meaning is just obsession with some insignificant detail or a ridiculous overstatement and simplification. Then there are comedians who can do one and a half hour shows, connect a string of topics, comment on publicly debated issues - moral, political, etc. - and one is entertained all the while. Sadly Kiss's book reminded me much more of the first kind of comedian. There are some funny bits and pieces, but reading the book for more than 10 minutes makes its shallowness obvious, and highlights that its author has failed to grasp what being an alien in England is like, as well what Brits are like. These are of course both tall orders, in fact, in my opinion they are impossible, since there is no unified British character, nor is there a single immigrant experience. There are common threads but those would have to be teased out with much more care and sophistication. What's more annoying is that Kiss doesn't even seem to have tried sufficiently. I would only recommend this book to someone who has never been to the UK and never intends to come here, and is a big fan of often very insensitive and politically incorrect 1970's, 1980's humour.

Books, books, books, and a beautiful Sunday

We finally have the first truly glorious weekend in the UK: the temperature is above 20 celsius degrees and the Sun is shining all day long. Accordingly, I went for a good 5,5k run around Summertown in the morning.

I've finally finished The Shepherd's Life yesterday. Excellent book. I have to make a small amendment to my previous post on the book: Rebanks does not argue straight out for a more conservative life and to sticking to old ways. He himself chose to combine his farming life with work done for UNESCO, and he tells several stories about how his grandfather, his father, other shepherds, and he himself had to adopt new methods and approaches to keep farming sustainable and going. Excellent book all in all.

The next two books that I will read will be Sidney Giffard's Japan Among the Powers 1890-1990, and Angela Kiss's How to be an Alien in England. Giffard's book seemed to be a good choice, as I have read now 5-6 basic books on the history, economy, and politics of Japan, as well as 15-20 of the key literary pieces. Giffard used to work in Japan in a political function, and he is a Brit, which makes the book doubly interesting for me.

Kiss's is book is nothing heavy or serious. I've already skimmed through the first few chapters on the bus. It is funny, in an interesting way. It is somewhere between humour that is becoming increasingly frowned upon and American stand up comedy. She does rely on many bad national stereotypes, and makes many jokes based on overgeneralization which are not necessarily lucky. But at some points she seems to be aware of what she is doing and making fun of making fun of people in this way. All in all, a relaxing and witty reading, even if one doesn't actually learn much about how to be an alien in England. Shusaku Endo's book Foreign Studies is probably a more accurate representation of the issues one deal with :)

Two types of thinking about action in philosophy

In Philosophy of Action we can differentiate (at least) between two very different ways of thinking about what types of actions there are:
I) One way would be a metaphysically/ontologically minded way. If we approach actions in this way we will try to see how they fit into the larger framework of the basic constituent categories of reality. We are trying to carve reality at the joints. One could then for example defend that all actions are instances of an agents' causing a(n intrinsic) result [e.g. Bach 1980, Alvarez & Hyman 1998]. Or one could defend the view that all actions are events [e.g. Davidson 1980, Goldman 1970, etc.]. Or that they are processes [e.g. Stout 2005]. Of course the plausibility of such views will depend on what one's view of instances of causing, events, or processes is, and how that fits what we know about actions, and what according to the view defended we should think about them. And of course one does not have to be a monist about such matters. One can be a pluralist and think that some actions belong into one of these categories, while others into another, and again further actions into the third one.
II) Another way of thinking about what types of actions there are could be called a moral/ethical/normative way. If one takes this approach it is possible to distinguish between 'voluntary', 'involuntary', 'non-voluntary', and 'intentional' actions [e.g. Anscombe 1963/2000, Bratman 1987, Frankfurt 1988, Hyman 2015].


There are of course more common ways of thinking about types of actions. For example we normally in our everyday lives and proceedings distinguish between drinking, brushing out teeth, and reading the news. These can all be treated as actions, an the differences between them are plenty of practical importance to us. The dentist rarely asks anyone to read the news more frequently and for at least tree minutes every time, nor does drinking help much with being well informed.

Chinese government diplomacy and rhetorics

I love articles like these.  Chinese Premier Li told Japanese Foreign Minister Kishida that the Japanese side should stick to the path of peaceful development, and match deeds with its words that China's peaceful development is an opportunity.

This is a rhetorical game the Chinese government plays every single time it is possible: it relies on the ignorance of most people about China's current power, and on the strong memory of the Japanese occupation of Chinese territories. Never mind that the occupation was more than 70 years ago, by a different political system that does not exists in Japan anymore, and that subsequent governments have apologized for it several times. Most people don't know these things and the Chinese PR specialists understand and use this fact to bend the truth the way it suits their bosses best.
Think also of the adjective 'peaceful'. China is one of the few countries which has actually annexed other independent countries and territories to itself since WWII. Tibet, the North-Eastern territories, and some other smaller areas are occupied by it. It is rapidly building military centers in the South-China Sea, it opposes the independence of Taiwan, and is already attacking all democratic institutions on Hong Kong. China's military spending now is second after the US, and has been continuously rising year by year. It is developing its own fighter jets, aircraft carriers, tanks, special advanced weapon systems, and has the capacity to destroy orbiting satellites. The government suppresses thousands of protests every year. It is still regular in China for people to disappear, to be bullied and even imprisoned for having different views from high ranking party members. This country claims to be peaceful.

The funniest bit is that the Chinese government's members and puppets always accuse Japan of aggression. While Japan committed war crimes during WWII, and did occupy several countries, it lost the war, was occupied for seven years itself, and has since been one of the most peaceful countries in the world, only maintaining self-defence forces until last summer. No countries invaded.

Successive Japanese governments, private people, researchers, and public figures have apologized several times for the crimes committed by a long ago gone Japanese government and a long ago gone army. Japan invested heavily in the rebuilding of China, and much of China's industrial capacity and economic ability has to be thanked for to Japan.

Just two further things to notice: I think Japan, and everyone else whose money China is growing on - Europe, the US, Australia, etc. - do see opportunity in the peaceful growth of China. But nobody sees an opportunity in the growth of an aggressive bully. This will of course hit worst the normal, working average Chinese citizens: their government is gambling with their security and good lives. The average person in China is like anywhere else: they care about job security, family, kids, education, health, friends, fun, and so on. The Chinese government is the culprit and has to be checked by collective action, now.

In light of all this, I don't think a single word of the Chinese government can be taken to mean literally what it does. The call for respect and peacefulness is basically a threat. A threat, that if other countries don't comply with their demands they will push in non-peaceful ways. This has to be seen as a real issue and treated as such.

Philosophy of Action: websites

I had a quiet afternoon finally, so philosophyofaction.com is up to date again.

Further other nice developments on the internet front of things for phil of action:
- The philosophy of action section of philpapers finally had a much needed expansion. Now it is encompassing many useful categories which makes it a lot easier to search - and for us editors to 'shelve' - the entries.
- Last year a number of good intro books and anthologies came out on phil of action as well as on moral psychology.

And another useful - but not action related - development: The Philosophers' Cocoon is running a helpful series on careers in philosophy.

A Hungarian Kokeshi doll maker

Congratulations to Reka Vasarhelyi-Toth, who won the second prize in Japan for her creation 'Dress-up Kokeshi cupboard'.

Check out Reka's works here, and you can see the award winning creation here.

Kokeshi dolls are cute and unique. It is always lovely to see that some of my compatriots are creating value and engage with other cultures at the same time. A rare thing at home, where many people still sneer at anyone young caring for creating something and engaging with arts, literature, culture, or hobbies in general, other than traditional folk dances.

Some fun stuff

Since it is a Sunday and everyone is chilling on the long weekend governments are probably up to evil stuff more intently than at other times to escape scrutiny. Sadly I'm too tired today to care, so I just compiled a list of sites which crack it.

Poorly Drawn Lines cracks it

The Sound of Your Heart cracks it

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal cracks it

And a bonus if you know Hungarian

Napirajz cracks it


Of course there are many others who crack it, and I might do another compilation soon. Enjoy the sunshine, it won't last, and there is a good chance next week we will wake up to Dave pulling another cheeky thing, or some weird shenanigan of the Chinese or the Saudi government again.

Just a relaxing Sunday

Today is May Day in Oxford. On the first of May every year the choir of Magdalen's College climbs the stairs of Magdalen's tower an sings at 6 a.m. people gather on the nearby Magdalen Bridge and all pubs and cafes are open around the clock. Morris dancers then lead a procession into the city center.

At the same time my other half is celebrating the Golden week in Japan.

This year I skipped the May Day (actually I skipped it every year so far) and went to the new Japanese pub on North Parade Avenue. Best Japanese food I've had so far in England, I can heartily recommend it. And they have a decent sake tasting option as well. People who had good sake won't be blown away, but it is a good start for beginner. I would definitely recommend the makis, the takoyaki, the sea weed, and the sashimi wasn't bad either. They also had draught Asahi and a good whiskey selection. What started out as a dinner with friends turned of course into a visit to some nearby pubs, notably to The Gardener's Arms, The Rickety Press, and The Harcourt Arms.

Hence, today is just about relaxing. I'll continue Rebanks's The Shepherd's Life, go for an easy long run, and celebrate with my mom mother's day, which is the first of May in Hungary.