Friday, 22 June 2012

Blog: Gene Expression
Topic: Reason: the God that fails, but we keep socially promoting….
Comment: I boggle over a paper on who likes Evolutionary Psychology and Evolution.  Razib subsequently posts on the subject here.

"So far I’ve been talking about opinions and beliefs that are held by contemporaries. The basic model is that you offload the task of reasoning about issues which you are not familiar with, or do not understand in detail, to the collective with which you identify, and give weight to specialists if they exist within that collective".

This appears to be a reasonable perspective and may also help to explain apparent contradictions where they do appear.

For example, I recently found a copy of a paper in my email inbox, after a disagreement about evolutionary psychology in which I was the proponent for, and the other party dismissed the subject matter, by pointing out that those who did not believe in evolution, were much more likely to accept the tenets of evolutionary psychology, than those who did accept the theory of evolution.

My supposition is that the intent behind this, was that having been shown evidence that people of faith accept a certain theory, that this should be sufficient cause for me to discard it, and join in "reading off a collective script".

Quite frankly, I was completely flummoxed. The paper for your consideration is this one:

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology
2011, 5(2), 1-9. 2011 Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology

"Our results revealed a double dissociation, whereby endorsers of human evolution displayed relatively weak support for claims derived from evolutionary psychology, whereas non-endorsers of human evolution displayed relatively strong support for such claims".

My current working hypothesis after reading the paper, was informed by statements such as this one from the paper which notes that:

"When they learned that the relevant survey items had been drawn from evolutionary theory, opponents of the theory were much less likely to endorse them".

The issue may be attributed to an ideological constraint within a clearly defined boundary, revealing that the individuals have not examined or understood in any great detail what they accept. They have in effect outsourced thinking about these precepts to others.

Under this hypothesis, a grouping such as liberals who accept evolution, reject evolutionary psychology, because their religious beliefs include articles of faith such as the Blank State. Whereas those who believe in God, will accept empirical observation that match their experiences, even if they tie into evolutionary psychology, but their religious beliefs will incline them to reject propositions clearly identified with the theory of evolution.


Sunday, 3 June 2012

Blog: Gucci Little Piggy
Topic: Sex to Impress
Comment: I have some admittedly childish fun with Michael and his writing style, and my own, indirectly referencing my ongoing and life long struggle to be "accessible", and hence the weak allusion to McLuhan. Any doubts that my comment was supposed to be gibberish in the postmodernism style, should have been dispelled by the links I provided at the end.

It appears that your inter-textual analysis of cultural deconstruction was not sufficiently broad nor inclusive on the one hand, and on the other the focus was weakly shifted, as it was insufficiently opaque at the edges and margins.

Because one is generally faced with a choice: either reject subcultural modernist theory or conclude that consensus is a product of communication, and I believe you have failed to conclusively demonstrate a sufficiently reductionist posture for the former, while only weakly advancing the case for the latter, and it shows an insufficient appreciation of the transition from within being externalized, while maintaining a cohesive integrity, and to transition this sufficiently while sufficiently populating the exterior, it is also crucial to actualize this posture suitable to the medium it is expressed within.

I can not emphasize enough that synthesis of this dynamic tension predicates a successful strategy.

I hope that you appreciate that I have deliberately structured this critique to be accessible to your demonstrated level of ability, and thus have kept the technical jargon to a minimum.


Sunday, 13 May 2012

Blog: Magan's
Topic:Open Borders Journal to Class of 2012: Drop Dead
Comment: The very first comment gets worked over by subsequent posters.

The initial comment rapidly mutates from this:  

The lack of self-awareness amongst the chattering classes is truly frightening. They pick up poison and call it bread, force you to eat it, and then wonder why you die.

To this:

The amorality amongst the chattering classes is truly frightening. They pick up poison and call it bread, force you to eat it, then mock you as you die.

I sense a disturbance in the force. The masses are revolting (but we know that), who shall serve then, as our very own Marie Antoinette?

Saturday, 12 May 2012

Blog:Gucci Little Piggy
Topic: The Eyes Have It
Comment: So I took the test and I was completely unsurprised at the results. I also gave it to a neighbour and she scored 28.

According to Chuck this test first appeared in Simon Baron-Cohen’s book:
 The Essential Difference.

The test is here:
Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (Revised, Adult)

My results were:

Your Score 20

Total Possible 36

An average score for this test is 26.2, or 21.9 for an adult with Asperger Syndrome or High-Functioning Autism

Friday, 11 May 2012

Blog: Gene Expression
Topic: Porn, a new age, an old age, and all that

Razib said:

interesting. since when universities hire the mentally disabled? this might make a lot more sense of budget problems in academia…. more seriously

I infer from the above statement that we share similar attitudes towards the first sentence that Jess made.

You may, or may not recall my previous comment about people who are only superficially educated, and if I remember correctly, have seen at least one photo of you, with people who I believe fit that criteria.

However, quite apart from that the fact that the term "sexism" appears to have a strongly negative moral dimension as currently defined, I believe an argument can be successfully made, that it is an effective tool of boundary control for the Politically Correct, and it's use is a strong signifier of such.

Other signifiers are of course "feminism" and "racism". At this point it should be beyond obvious that I am not addressing you Razib, or for that matter, many of the people who post here, but to those who may be unaware rather, that crossing the boundary of what is acceptable in academia, could have consequences.

What is truly unfortunate in my opinion, is that I do not believe that you were too far off the mark with your statement either. I despair of the current education system at times, and examples such as the above do not offer any comfort.
Blog: Gene Expression
Topic: Porn, a new age, an old age, and all that

I suspect that the ready availability of porn among other things, has had at least some impact on currently normative sexual mores among young people.

I have no citations, nor can I recall any recent studies on the matter, just the observation for example, that many teenage girls who shoot naked "self shot" pictures of themselves have shaved pubes, leading to the assumption that porn consumption is perhaps responsible for the transmission and adoption of this practise.

Examination of the GPS tags in the EXIF data of many of these self-shots, could perhaps reveal some interesting and inferred socio-economic patterns for those interested in such matters. As a side note, there appears to be a distressing lack of awareness among the girls who take these photos, that they are also publishing the exact location that they were taken, presumably in their homes, and hence there is some exposure to the possibility of unpleasant consequences in the future.

Obviously there is a problem with assertions of the like, and there may well be other obvious socio-cultural factors of which I am either unaware, or have discounted, such as the influence of celebrity sex tapes, which may be posited as just amplifiers of an existing signal.

In any event, I have encountered individuals who self-censor themselves, like my children when they were pre-adolescent, to other teenagers, who not only deliberately do not seek out porn, but quickly shut it down when they encounter it.

We also tend to ignore I have noticed, the possible impact on porn on the more senior members of our society, no doubt for obvious reasons, but their reactions when exposed to such material tends I think we can agree to a large extent, to not induce moral panic, but amusement such as this example, where some Grandmas watch the Kim Kardashian sex tape.

Wednesday, 9 May 2012

I may be an Atheist, but I live in God's country.  The view from my deck:

Site : The Political Compass
Topic: Test
Comment : This is what the Political Compass reported after I took their test :

Economic Left/Right: -5.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.92

Blog: Gene Expression
Topic: Jonathan Haidt & Robert Wright: crazy delicious
Comment: I do not usually indulge in a debate myself. I prefer to get what view the other person has and offer my own.  Debates quite often though, are really pitches to the audience.

    12.   AndrewV Says:
    April 4th, 2012 at 11:55 am

    Razib said:

    “People need to know your motives are pure, and, they need to not be stupid and ignorant (the latter is a problem). Once those preconditions are met then it is not impossible to work through difficult topics, whatever they may be”.

The issue I have with this statement is that in my experience, and here I commit an obvious sin myself, is not so much that that people have to be convinced of the purity of your motive, but the chance that the person is incapable of discussing it in a meaningful way in the first place.

I am arguing, that it is not just the “stupid and ignorant” that you have to be wary of, but also the “superficially educated”.

A 13 year old who can quote Chaucer, and will passionately denounce a modern translation of the Miller’s Tale as lacking poetry and nuance (and I was that child), is nontheless incapable of the appreciation of the work that only a mature sensibility can bring.

Eventually I achieved a “first” in English Literature. In reality, my score was based on my ability to impersonate an erudite appreciation, when the fact of the matter was that I had only a superficial understanding of the material at best.

You may be well advised to take that under consideration when selecting who you debate with.
Blog: No MA'AM
Topic David Futrelle of Manboobz: A Rapist by Feminist Standards
Comment: I made no comments on this article. The original post is here and reproduced below.

I do not actually hold any animus to Manboobz myself. I currently think that not only is he misguided, but quite often his quote mining  are acts of desperation. However, he should be aware that he is on thin ice if he has his wits about him.


"Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included." -- Karl Marx

"Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism." - Catharine A. MacKinnon, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (First Harvard University Press, 1989), p.10

"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806

"The Women's Caucus [endorses] Marxist-Leninist thought." -- Robin Morgan, Sisterhood is Powerful, p. 597

David Futrelle of Manboobz: A Rapist by Feminist Standards
From an article at The Spearhead:

"In a piece of wonderful news for parents who send their daughters to Northwestern University, David Futrelle is getting involved in a feminist sex week in which feminists teach college girls about good and ungood sex. Even better, after giving a sex talk, he will be providing free condoms and lube to the girls.
Read more here.

The Case for David Futrelle of Manboobz being a Rapist by Feminist Definitions

It really is not hard to make the case that what David Futrelle of Manboobz is actually doing is promoting a Rape Seminar which merely is encouraging young, vulnerable women to subject themselves to Rape and Sexual Violence.

“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist” — Ti-Grace Atkinson “Amazon Odyssey” (p. 86)

“Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to generate fear must rank as one of the most important discoveries of prehistoric times, along with the use of fire, and the first crude axe stone.” — Susan Brownmiller

“[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.” — Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will, p.6

“Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and the spray of semen…[Lesbianism is] an ideological, political and philosophical means of liberation of all women from heterosexual tyranny… “ — Cheryl Clarke, “Lesbianism, An Act of Resistance,” in This Bridge Called My Back: Writing by Radical Women of Color

When David Futrelle of Manboobz Gives Out Condoms and Lube, What Kind of Sexuality is He Promoting?

David Futrelle of Manboobz is CLEARLY endorsing heterosexual intercourse if he is giving out condoms and lube. Doesn’t sound lesbian to me.

“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” — Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, (Dutton Publishing, 1989)

“Rape is the primary heterosexual model for sexual relating. Rape is the primary emblem of romantic love. Rape is the means by which a woman is initiated into her womanhood as it is defined by men.” — Andrea Dworkin, Letters From a War Zone, (Dutton Publishing, 1989)

“Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes” — Marilyn French, The Women’s Room (1977) ISBN 0-345-35361-7 (p.462).

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.” — Susan Griffin “Rape: The All-American Crime”

Even the "Good Sex" David Futrelle of Manboobz is Promoting is Sexual Violence, Rape and Women's Oppression

Since David Futrelle of Manboobz is clearly trying to convince women how to have “good sex,” I assume that he will also be encouraging women to experience as many orgasms as they possibly can. Therefore, he is encouraging women to remain patriarchally oppressed by learning to enjoy her rape:

“When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…” — Sheila Jeffrys

“Men’s sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can ‘reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.’ Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women’s own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, ‘even if she does not feel forced.’ — Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

“Compare victims’ reports of rape with women’s reports of sex. They look a lot alike….[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it.” — Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, “Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation,” Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991.

Every Kind of Sex David Futrelle of Manboobz is Promoting Supports Violence Against Women

I don’t care what kind of sex David Futrelle of Manboobz is promoting – good sex, bad sex, oral sex, vaginal sex, anal sex, or digital sex with Russian Hands and Roman Fingers. According to the ideology of Feminism which David Futrelle of Manboobz clearly identifies himself with, he obviously supports violence against women if he is holding seminars promoting heterosexual sex.

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” — Catharine MacKinnon

“Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.” — Catharine MacKinnon

“I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” — Robin Morgan

Conclusion: David Futrelle of Manboobz: Rapist by Feminist Definition

Further to my argument and the evidence I put forth above, they are talking about heterosexual sex being a form of rape. Therefore, David Futrelle of Manboobz is a rapist according to the definitions of the ideology he blatantly identifies himself with.

I know David Futrelle of Manboobz is reading this along with his feminist sycophants. Follow along, David Futrelle of Manboobz, because I’m not done with you yet, Man-pussy.

I have been accusing you of being a rapist – but only by your own ideology’s definition – certainly not according to any legal definition that sane people would identify rape with.

But, according to your own ideology, not only you are rapist, but now you are holding seminars that even promote rape!

David Futrelle of Manboobz, you are a rapist and you support rape culture and any defence you give merely makes you a rape-apologist.

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience,” — Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time.

I haven’t been around for a while, David Futrelle of Manboobz, but the last I was around you were a little man-douche who blatantly libeled me by declaring I was gay-bashing on my blog – something which is a serious crime in my country.

But, David Futrelle of Manboobz, according to the sickness of the ideology you desperately declare yourself part of, you are a rapist and now you are even giving seminars which encourage women to get raped and learn to love it!

You picked a bad enemy with a guy like me, asshole.

“Get Stuffed!” — Rob Fedders, No Ma’am Blog, 2007
Blog: I Forget
Topic: Saint Travonne
Type: Rant

Despite what I wrote, I feel badly for the parents. I suspect that only another parent who has lost a child, can really understand what they are going through.

Once you become a parent yourself, only then can you understand that your children are hostages to your future.

He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief.
Francis Bacon

In any event, if I remember correctly, a female came in on the comments and assumed that Zimmerman was guilty, my response is below starting with the quote.

"he still has to explain why he chose to shoot an unarmed kid".

A much more pertinent question is why would a registered Democrat, who before being transformed into a fair representation of the Devil incarnate, in his previous life was a self identified Hispanic, who mentored black "yoofs" and made himself popular with the local police, by actively campaigning for enquiries into the beating of a homeless black man by the son of a police officer, suddenly find himself transformed into a racist devil who stalked and killed a little black child?

To quote "No good deed goes unpunished" attributed to various luminaries, but who I ascribe to Clair Luce Booth (and no doubt I am betraying a certain defect and bias in character to all and sundry), is particularly apt, as the sister of said Homeless! Black! Man! who of all people, should have been expected to know of the efforts expended by said Devil on behalf of her sibling, was noticed, and you could hardly fail to, publicly denouncing his person by utilizing what is quaintly known in some circles as a "bullhorn".

My dear sir, pray allow me to try and explain to you, while restraining my self from calling you a moron, or at the very least a nincompoop, because if anyone to quote my Grandmother "has not the brains that God gave a goose" it would most certainly be someone like you.

If only you had performed a minimal scrutiny of the details of the passing of our posthumous Saint Trayvon, the now beatified, notwithstanding his self described image of himself as a “No_Limit_Nigga” as his twitter handle illustrates, you would not have put yourself forward as a candidate for scrutiny to determine your possibly deficiencies in cognition.

But enough of that. Perhaps it is simply because it is political. Apparently, Florida being a "swing" state it would serve some purpose to have the Blacks there in some sort of turmoil over the shooting of one of their own, by someone with a suspiciously sounding Germanic surname, and possibly persuaded to vote in a certain direction, by among other things, a prominent person who apparently opined that if he only had a son, he would have expressed his phenotype to resemble our dearly departed Trayvon.

In any event, if you wish to contrast the "media" image presented to you, the narrative so as to speak, which turns out to have some conflict to objective reality you could do worse than looking here:

Before anyone clicks on the above link, in all fairness decency and concern for the general well being of my fellow humans, be aware that no matter what creed, race or political stripe you currently wear, there is guaranteed to be something at that site that will offend, if not cause you to swoon, and I encourage you to divest yourself of your panties, lest you find them bunched at an inopportune time.

Finally, and last but not least, I also recognize that certain disputations individuals may view my attempt at public service, as the mendacious mutterings of a pompous ass at best, but it is still a burden that I am will willing to bear, and no one should feel compelled to become lachrymose on my behalf.
Blog: A Voice For Men
Topic: Your left, right, left

Paul said:

“If you are a left leaning individual, and you support men’s rights but are tiring of people taking shots at the left and blaming them for feminism, then I can only suggest that you take that to the feminist source in your own camp”.

Hi Paul, I am a leftist (not a very good one though) but let me try and explain why this may be problematic, and why in many cases, you may as well ask a Christian to listen to the words of Satan.

I hope you will understand, after I have finished, that what you are asking for is in many cases, very difficult if not impossible, for many people in orbit of the Left to contemplate, much less act on.

Very briefly and somewhat superficially I wish to outline the background, the mechanism by which control is utilized, and the consequences of following your suggestion.

 The innate assumption of the Left is that they are good, decent, moral and ethical people and anything they support is just and true. Therefore, only ignorant, stupid and/or evil people would oppose or offer a critique without first establishing that they are fundamentally in agreement, and are thus arguing within an acceptable framework, and in good faith.

Generally, you may be viewed with pity as unenlightened, and if intelligent enough, all that has to be done is to educate you, and by pointing out that as a decent person, that there is only one ethical option available to you.

It also necessary for you to understand that the Left views itself as populated by decent and ethical people, and comprise many individuals who regard themselves as “unafraid” to take the necessary steps to correct a “historical evil”. Any questionable actions and fallout is viewed as “unfortunate” but “for the greater good” sacrifices have to be made.

 In my view, thereligious inclination is an inherent and normative part of any human population and comprise the majority. Anyone who is an Atheist like myself, are in a minority who my guess is, comprise anywhere from between 3% to 5% of any given population. I also strongly suspect this condition is genetically related.

In any event, the Left comprise many an Atheist, who are that way because they made an intellectual choice to be so, and again in my view, having actively denied a fundamental part of their themselves, into that lacuna have channelled their otherwise natural religious inclination towards Political Correctness.

Those who do allow themselves to be religious have no issues with incorporating PC into their system of beliefs either.

PC is therefore within that milieu, a religious doctrine, and is especially relevant for the secular left for the above reasons, and Feminism is one of the sacred cows of the left.

Anyone who attacks a sacred teaching is automatically viewed with the suspicion that they are not a decent person. PC is therefore a very powerful social tool for maintaining a strong cohesive within the progressive collective.

The Left therefore as a whole, automatically assumes the worst about your character if you criticize any of it’s tenants from within or without. If you are not part of the Left, by definition your view is incorrect, because only the Left possess the truth.

Therefore, there is no point to even giving a fair hearing to any opposition from within, because having no excuse for being unenlightened, it is self evident that you must be unethical, and/or immoral, and therefore will have to first defend yourself from charges of being racist, misogynist etc. etc. and it is thus also a very effective means of imposing self-censorship.

 Someone on the Left therefore, has to have a very strong sense of self, to withstand the opprobrium by the members of your self identified community, and will be expelled if they do not come to their senses and repent.

As for you Paul, as the majority of people are weak, and must be constantly shepherded, you represent a clear and present danger to the populace as a whole and it is therefore very urgent and incredibly important that you be silence dby any means available for the “greater good”.

Morever, you must be silenced because otherwise you may mislead an uninformed, unenlightened, uneducated person who may be otherwise of good character astray. The first step naturally is to reveal your true nature, thus you are naturally a misognist, and an organizer of a hate group, as characterized by the SPLC.

As you grow in influence, expect future attacks, because after all, you are evil, and must be destroyed.

Link added to an article by Kevin Drum over at  Mother Jones that illustrates what I was talking about. From the article:
"A week ago at the Chronicle of Higher Education's Brainstorm blog, Naomi Schaefer Riley wrote a post titled "The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations." As it happens, though, Riley didn't read any of the dissertations she mocked. She just read the titles and unilaterally declared them useless. "What a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap," she grumbled, "The best that can be said of these topics is that they’re so irrelevant no one will ever look at them."
Blog: The Atheist Indian
Topic: Maybe India Needs Feminism After All
Date: May 7, 2012

My admittedly superficial thoughts on the matter of Feminism for countries that have not yet adopted it, is that basically it will end badly for any society that adopts it without some careful deliberation of what are desirable goals, what are not, and the determination of appropriate checks and balances within that framework.

There is nothing wrong with providing safety valves so that some individuals who wish to express themselves differently can do so, it is quite another to simultaneously coerce women as a whole into acting against their natural inclinations which have traditionally benefited any society, while simultaneously encouraging them towards acting on other aspects of their inclinations, which are destructive to the current social order, and which in the past were vigorously suppressed.

Feminism in the West has given every appearance so far, in not only throwing all of the toys out of the pram, but is also highly engaged with throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You can I believe, make a successful argument that where Feminism has run aground in the West, is because it has been tightly coupled with aspects of Marxism where among other things, equality of outcome is the focus and the goal instead of equality of opportunity.

Wholesale adoption of Feminism within the current Western Marxist framework, has already had observable and dire social consequences which are still being played out. Examples abound in the UK, USA, and Sweden.

The first question that should be asked is, can your society absorb the costs of Feminism in it’s current format?

I have not given citations for any of my assertions (this is a comment, not an essay).

However, this is the age of the Internet and anyone can do their own research using nothing more than a search engine such as Google, and keywords such as Cultural Marxism, marriage, divorce, “man up” laddish etc. etc. etc. etc. and come to their own conclusions.
Blog: Playing the Devil's Advocate
Topic: My Views on “Wannabe Whites”
Date: March 25, 2012

My understanding is that Razib Khan spent his formative years in the US so I would not be surprised at all if he has been westernized. I am not Indian myself but I have had enough exposure to various aspects of Indian culture to be unsurprised.

I would like to point out though, that in my experience, in general any culture comprises both homogenous and heterogeneous components and that any one of which has aspects that are both sticky and plastic or fluid.

The transmission of values and the associated rituals, and forms, and the degree to which they will taken up and adopted by one culture from another depends on a wide variety of factors but quite commonly the axis is where the values intersect. In addition certain aspects may be disproportionately amplified, distorted and or suppressed depending on how they resonate with already established cultural mores.

Some examples, contrast the British tea drinking ritual, and the consumption of curry in that most traditional of British institutions, the English pub.

Consider the wholesale importation and incorporation into the English language of words of Hindi, Urdu, Sanskrit and Tamil origin. I would be willing to wager a large sum that the majority of native English speakers are completely unaware of the origins of words such as bungalow, khaki, bandanna, chicanery, dinghy, jodhpurs juggernaut, aryan, atoll, cowrie, crimson, pariah, catamaran, and candy. These words are only a sample and no where near a complete list.

Examples of more complex cultural transmission is that of the game of cricket and the hunting at hounds. The incorporation of jodhpurs into the English form of this ritual is I dare say unnoticed by it's practitioners, whether in Canada or "Snooty Ooty" (Ootacamund, Tamil Nadu, India). The axis for the above two samples are universal across all cultures, games and hunting. In the case of the latter it is also a means of demonstrating and reinforcing higher sociocultural "value" and elevated status.

Lastly, I leave you to contemplate the military square as currently practised in China. This form of ritual has been around since antiquity and is no stranger to any country, except many of the current specifics were refined by the Prussians. Note also the strinking similarity to jodhpurs worn by the men at the begining of the video.