Stupidest Shithole in America: Dietrich, Idaho

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(It's our third entry in this new series. The first two were Nelson, Georgia and Mississippi.)

Maybe it's not fair to call a place a "shithole" simply because of the ignorant, moralizing stupidity of a few parents who object to the teaching of science and sex, but until this nonsense is done, this small "community with heart" in the south-central part of the state, roughly between Boise and Idaho Falls, qualifies for the title:

A high school science teacher in Idaho is under investigation by the state's professional standards commission because he reportedly used the word "vagina" during a biology lesson.

Tim McDaniel, who teaches 10th grade science at Dietrich School, told the Twin Falls Times-News that four parents were upset when they learned that his lesson included the word "vagina" and information about the biology behind female orgasm.

"I teach straight out of the textbook, I don't include anything that the textbook doesn't mention," McDaniel remarked. "But I give every student the option not attend this class when I teach on the reproductive system if they don't feel comfortable with the material."

Oh no! High school students learning about vaginas and orgasms! Ah, but no wonder: This is a part of the state with a heavy Mormon population. And of course Mormons have neither vaginas nor orgasms.

"[T]here are a couple people in the community that are trying to get Mr. McDaniel fired for teaching the reproductive system, climate change, and several other science subjects," students wrote. "All these subjects were taught from the book and in good taste. He cares for each of his students and goes the extra mile to help them all. Now is the time for us to help by supporting him!"

Well, the children are the future, and at least these nobly enlightenment-seeking examples of teendom don't want to live in a stupid shithole.

You're teaching them well, Mr. McDaniel.

Tribal chieftains: Another primal scream from the Republican war on women

By Mustang Bobby

Any time a man starts an article with "What do women want," you know you're in for good laugh -- as in hollow and sardonic. For example, check out this by Kevin D. Williamson at National Review:

What do women want? The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status — thus the commonness of younger women's pairing with well-established older men but the rarity of the converse. The Demi Moore–Ashton Kutcher model is an exception — the only 40-year-old woman Jack Nicholson has ever seen naked is Kathy Bates in that horrific hot-tub scene. Age is cruel to women, and subordination is cruel to men. Ellen Kullman is a very pretty woman, but at 56 years of age she probably would not turn a lot of heads in a college bar, and the fact that she is the chairman and CEO of Dupont isn't going to change that.

[...]

Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.

Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.

Wow, I can smell the Viagra-enhanced testosterone from here.

It doesn't take Psychology 101 to figure out that this dude has real issues with feelings of gender inferiority when he cranks out a defensive -- and offensive -- primal scream like this. I don't know him from Adam, but given the topic of the last week and the larger topic of women having control of their uterus, you have to wonder why it is that conservatives are so threatened by other peoples' self-confidence and sense of autonomy.

Why does Mr. Williamson get all bonered up about Mitt Romney siring five sons who turn out male grandsons and diss President Obama for having daughters? (By the way, all of Mitt's boys are straight? C'mon. The simple law of averages predicts that at least one of them has Latter Days in his Netflix queue.) Simply put, what is so threatening about women to him and to a lot of men in the Republican Party?

He will have to answer that on his own, but I'm pretty sure it explains why the GOP isn't doing so well with women voters. 

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

To war or not to war

By Carol Gee

"Pheromones Identified that Trigger Aggression between Male Mice." This is the headline just in from the NIH News. The National Institutes of Health are in the business of basic research. I would call the findings just announced as very basic (emphasis mine). To quote:

A family of proteins commonly found in mouse urine is able to trigger fighting between male mice, a study in the Dec. 6, 2007, issue of Nature has found. The study, which is the first to identify protein pheromones responsible for the aggression response in mice, was funded in part by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD), one of the National Institutes of Health. Pheromones are chemical cues that are released into the air, secreted from glands, or excreted in urine and picked up by animals of the same species, initiating various social and reproductive behaviors.

"Although the pheromones identified in this research are not produced by humans, the regions of the brain that are tied to behavior are the same for mice and people. Consequently, this research may one day contribute to our understanding of the neural pathways that play a role in human behavior," says James F. Battey, Jr., M.D., Ph.D., director of the NIDCD. "Much is known about how pheromones work in the insect world, but we know very little about how these chemicals can influence behavior in mammals and other vertebrates."

. . . [Stowers] "a bar code of individuality for each mouse. And we don't know whether the proteins are actually coding for aggression per se, or whether they're serving as a general cue of individuality for a male."

If the latter is the case, it could help explain why, unlike the males, female mice don't show aggression when with a male. In addition to investigating this question further, the team plans to explore how receptor neurons sift through all of the cues in the environment to detect the relevant cues to influence behavior and how those sensory neurons are connected to the rest of the brain. They also hope to learn more about the neural pathway itself — whether one pathway in the brain is dedicated to one behavior, or whether there are general pathways that can lead to a range of behaviors, which may be modulated by a specific pheromone.

. . . The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation's Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases.

I am a elder female mouse, non-aggressive, though my readers at the opposite end of the political spectrum might disagree. Since I was in high school I have been fascinated with why men go to war. I read cheap novels and short stories about dogfights in the sky. I also read "From Here to Eternity," by James Jones (1951); "The Naked and the Dead," by Norman Mailer (1948), and "The Cruel Sea," by Nicholas Monsarrat (1951). And I remain fascinated; so far I have written 446 S/SW posts containing the word "war".

The question about human pheromones is very pertinent here, according to Science News Online and, of course, Wikipedia. As a mental health practitioner, over the years it became much more clear to me how much of human behavior is deeply entrenched in biology. That awareness makes me feel both discouraged and encouraged about the discovery of aggression pheromones in male mice.

Discouragement arises at the possibility that humans may be hard-wired with aggression proclivities. Today's news from the Middle East would certainly argue for that position. However, unless built-in aggression is nature's form of population control in the face of limited natural resources, I just cannot allow myself to believe that we are destined to be at war forever on this teeny little planet.

Recent news from The Financial Times, about an agreement on how to proceed with global cooperation to mitigate threatening climate change, is very encouraging. I feel relieved because I believe that information is power. And I feel more encouraged when I remember that one of our most endearing human qualities is to respond to "our better angels" within. Have a good weekend.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

It's elementary Watson

By Capt. Fogg

"What I really meant to say was. . ." is a phrase we hear too often when there's campaigning going on, but of course politicians aren't the only ones putting their feet in their mouths. Nobel Prize-winning biologist Jim Watson, co-discoverer of the double helix DNA structure, has managed to get himself quoted on various occasions as saying that women should be allowed to abort gay fetuses if a genetic marker can be discovered, and that there may be a correlation between skin color and sexual prowess.

His recent comments seem clearly to state that the intelligence of Africans is "not the same" as that of non-Africans and that while he hoped everyone was equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."

After the predictable furor and the cancellation of a lecture, the venerable Dr. Watson seems to have become aware of the multiple gaffe and has now told the Royal Society that "I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said." It's easy, Jim -- just open your mouth and the rest will come naturally to you.

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

Well I think that drawing an inference isn't the same as hearing an unequivocal statement, but OK, that's not what you meant and I'm sure that the explanation is elementary. Just don't tell us it had anything to do with a wide stance or a piece of toilet paper on the floor. That one's been used already.

Meanwhile, I'm going outside to work on my tan.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)