Letters to the Editor
-
He said that in ASPEN?!?
And he made it out of town alive?
I wish I could see some video of the audience reaction.
I hope he's got a taster for his food.
-
Calm down
Please calm down. E.O. Wilson is a brilliant man. We all know what he meant. And he's right, of course.
-
Soccer Mom Pride
I have been wondering when it became so politically correct to debase the soccer mom. Not only is it totally sexist, it tries to humiliate a mom for providing her kids an opportunity for physical exercise, social interaction and competitiveness.
-
Hilarious
Did it ever occur to you that Wilson might just have a brilliantly dry wit? No, probably not. Regardless, even if he isn't joking, he makes a very valid point - the entire soccer mom phenomena is nauseating and probably DOES do more harm to kids than good, by simultaneously coddling them into being kids well into their 20's, and, at the same time, force-feeding them into being stressed-out little over-achievers. Kudos to Wilson.
-
Best, worst, etc
Whether possibility "A" is better or worse than possibility "B" depends on what one is trying to accomplish. E. O. Wilson's words are not advice, they are just an obfuscated expression of his own prejudices about which aspects of child development are more important.
-
The Soccer Mom
First, hooray, what happened to her? Last election she was all the rage this one, she got swept under the carpet.
Second, what he means about soccer mom in this context, is exactly right. The reason soccer is not fun for kids in America, way too many parents involved, they killed the fun. Take his point from there, leave the friggin kids alone to experience the world. Why do we have to have a continuous annoying PBS style narration with everything in life.
Bravo Mr. Wilson. Let the kids experience nature at their pace.
-
Sexist?
How in the world is criticizing soccer moms inherently sexist? If I also criticize uptight, materialistically-driven, white collar executive Dads who are surgically attached to their Crackberrys, am I also being sexist?
-
sheesh....
I'm glad that posters are getting the point here. No one advocates NEVER learning the names of things, just learning names as a substitute for a real experience!
I would go further and say experiencing something first, then learning about it is more meaningful.
And yes, field guides can greatly limit the scope of your observation. I rarely take field guides into the field... I look up the critters when I get home!
I will say, I'm tired of hearing "soccer-mom" as well as
Generation X
Alpha Males
Something-Americans
Tweens
Liberal Elitist
Nanny-state
...and jillions more over-simplified pigeon holes, but I don't freak out when I do hear them...
-
Thoughts of a Soccer Dad
Wilson expressed himself poorly. And, I ask, why always go after soccer, soccer moms, etc? Me, I would have gone after the Little League dads. :)
But I understand his point. My love of soccer came from playing in the streets and empty lots with my friends, not an adult in sight. I discovered nature much the same way. But today, it's all organized. Parents are everywhere, interfering with kids fun, calling offsides on kids who haven't the foggiest notion of what that is, yelling at the opposing players (yes, I've seen that), yelling at the referee (seen and experienced that too), walking onto the field during a game to yank their child out of the game (yup, ...). Everything is organized. I recall one fellow soccer dad wearily tell his son, after a game, "C'mon son. Got to get to the next organized spontaneous event."
It has been my experience that our kids today do not have the freedom to explore, experience, and fail on their own. We are over protective, and I can understand that, being a dad myself. But we're not doing our kids any favors by providing them the Cliff Notes version of life. As long as we're using soccer as a metaphor here, I can see the effects on our home grown pro players. They don't have the flair or creativity of the Brazilians or Mexicans. It's been drilled out of them.
What to do? I don't know. It's hard to let go. But we probably should lock up the video games, confiscate the mobile phones, and turn the kids outdoors.
-
Wow, this is really a debate about identity, lifestyle
My initial reaction was anger that Wilson should be attacked for his “affront” to the poor, oppressed soccer moms—and dads—of America. (I’m a fan of Wilson, and appreciate his attempts to bridge the chasms that separate different disciplines. This seems much more newsworthy!)
But then I thought about it. Even if you’re in a relatively affluent class, it can’t be fun to be constantly derided and painted as greedy and vapid. And look how easily the scorn came to my own lips.
Obviously Wilson’s comment wasn’t very sensitive, but there’s clearly logic in it. Americans are incredibly ignorant about the natural world, and this is one huge reason we’re doing such horrible things to the environment, the one where we live. We tend to compartmentalize, thinking of “the environment” as an abstraction rather than the air we breathe or food we eat (pesticides, growth hormone, antibiotics, preservatives, chemical additives).
And learning from experience and with joy rather than by rote is undeniably better.
But it’s certainly not fair to lay all of this on the soccer folk, and I don’t find arboretums menacing or labels anti-educational; Wilson might just revise that statement if given the chance. Maybe he is old and grumpy.
A commenteer (did I just coin that?) coming from another place, however, might have been curious to sort through some of these nuances, rather than assuming a defensive crouch and hurling invective in the general direction of Creationists (who do, indeed, work to inhibit truth and learning).
Here’s the story: the soccer folk, especially the suburban soccer folk are part of huge and damaging trend. Suburbs mean big houses, lawn chemicals, lots of driving, lots of stuff. It’s a lifestyle built on affordable gas (or energy, we should say) and it drives our foreign policy. Do you buy into climate change yet?
Maybe this uncomfortable complicity in a truly staggering problem makes some people defensive. It does me. Even though I try to live responsibly I’m certainly leaving behind an awfully big footprint and consuming vastly more resources than most people on the planet. And I don’t think it’s fair to blame this all on “yuppies.”
We're obviously entering an age when convservation will be an important, "mainstream" issue. Who draws the line, and where? To what degree can/should moral judgement be passed?
SUVs have a been a favorite target for years, and now it’s Al Gore’s big house. If we’re going to have a serious conversation about science and the world we live in, it is a good idea to stop calling names and honestly face the consequences of our lifestyle(s) (I bet the plastic in your keyboard is made out of petroleum). Though the view can be vastly different, we're ultimately in this together.
p.s. But fer God’s sake, do you really have to lay into Wilson like this is the intelligentsia version of TMZ?
http://www.tmz.com/
p.p.s. If you’re curious about Wilson, check out this book, Consileience: The Unity of Knowledge:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consilience:_The_Unity_of_Knowledge
or this interview:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=StP4697Rtaw