A bit of free time has resulted in boredom. Want to write down a few thoughts, maybe a loose road map for the next couple of posts.
First, the latest installment of King of Pol. KoP posted a video on his YouTube account recently which details his final thoughts on #GamerGate. In it, KoP stated he started medication to help him cope with the stresses that came from being a prominent member in #GamerGate. He claims #GamerGate is a 50/50 split of good and evil people who employ the detestable actions of doxxing, threats, and dog piling. KoP sounded different, spoke differently, and approached his final thoughts in a passive aggressive manner fit only for a princess of a time past.
KoP came across as conspiratorial, afraid, aloof, and feigned indifference. He was contradictory in his statements. KoP wished the money which was earned--predominately to support charity events--was spent on advertising and class action law suits. Claims of the entire movement being hypocritical because of a non-contentious point. These points begin to coalesce a picture of KoP as he was throughout the #GamerGate campaign: driven and ambitious when on the battlefield, but broken and lost when on the sidelines. A shame, because KoP had a platform, just as Internet Aristocrat had, but was unable to withstand the mild discomfort of people mocking and attacking him. KoP was never a stoic, never "tough", and most certainly was not the alpha he claimed to be; rather, KoP was the beta he was derided for, he picked fights based on imagined harms and offenses, and KoP basked, when it was bright and warm, in the attention from his followers. Now, he's broken, diminished, and likely to be slowly forgotten as he attempts to stay with game reviews.
Final thoughts on King of Pol: KoP is done as a figure for anything. It is assumed, based on statements made by KoP, that he is a psychiatric nurse. If his behaviour from his streams is anything like his behaviour at his job then I believe KoP run into significant issues with his employer. Any mental health professional (something which I can claim to be) knows about "power struggles" and why they are to always be avoided. Much of were KoP has ended up is likely because of pressures from his job mixed with his inability to maintain composure when he needed to most. Best of luck, KoP.
HannibaltheVictor13 is an interesting name that I first came across when Sargon of Akkad did a response video to Hannibal's challenge of Sargon's understanding of viking shield maidens. More recently, Hannibal was featured on Thunderf00t's channel after Hannibal made yet another funny video directed to Thunderf00t. In it, Hannibal opens by threatening Thunderf00t. In his follow up video, Hannibal claims that if Thunderf00t believed it to be a threat, to go to the authorities (and that Hannibal, who has chosen to not go to the authorities) would drop highly incriminating evidence on Thunderf00t. One would think, if Hannibal's desire was to "fuck [Thunderf00t] over, even if it is the last thing [he] does.", Hannibal would not hesitate to either file charges to pass tips to law enforcement.
Of course, this was no threat. Why? Simple: Hannibal is a rage laden fool. He lacks integrity, discipline, and honor. Hannibal poses the greatest threat to himself as long he possess these attributes. Hannibal admits he once became intoxicated to the point that he was either arrested or escorted home by police after he was found on a dirt road wielding a sword and threatening stalks of corn. This event gave Thunderf00t great insight into what kind of threats can be made by the portly Hannibal.
Internet drama is excellent when one needs to kill some boredom.
I would like to write an article on what I'm calling "The Progressive Bubble". How ultra progressive policies and demands have created a dangerous bubble in our social structure. When it bursts, there will be significant damage and upheaval. I need to flesh out a few more ideas on the matter to make it somewhat coherent.
I will change the blog name soon to reflect how I view the world, and adding in posts on how one can achieve a more stoic life. I have recently gained new employment, so my free time has changed. However, I still wish to write and will do so when I have well developed ideas and not just because my fingers need to move.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Thursday, January 15, 2015
Post 26 -- Gamers, conduct, and... change?
This article was inspired by Sargon of Akkad's conversation with Damion Rayne.
Are "gamers" as an identity dying?
In short, no. Gamers are gamers because they play games. There is no wiggle room. It's like stating you are not a hockey fan but you spend your free time watching hockey, learning hockey stats, building fantasy hockey teams, writing hockey blogs, and calling into local sports radio shows. There is a spectrum from casual gamers, who play games that require limited practice, research, and time to engage in (e.g., Clash of Clans), to hardcore gamers, that study their game(s) of choice, practice it near-daily, and immerse themselves in the culture that organically grows out of a hobby which consumes that degree of time (e.g., World of Tanks, League of Legends). As long as there are games, there will be gamers.
During Sargon's conversation with Damion and Veemonro, Damion makes the argument that the gaming community acts against itself when it uses inherently racist jokes or jokes about rape. Damion's states his concern comes from the perception that is generated by such actions: onlookers will see the language being used, devoid of context, to conclude gaming, as a culture, is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or intolerant. It is a fair observation, but I think it takes some fleshing out to respond to properly.
Online gaming and online spaces are truly unique in human history. Prior to the internet, if a man wanted to go to KKK rally, he would have to dress appropriately and leave his house. Now, racist individuals can merely log onto a forum and join fellow racists in expressing their mutual hate for a particular dermal difference. Online spaces allow one to be anonymous. Our theoretical KKK member could vent for hours online before going into work where he shares his work space with blacks, Asians, and women--none of whom will believe our online KKK member holds these beliefs.
Online spaces provide an extreme amount of intellectual freedom. Not that it is all smart, but there are almost no constraints preventing people from saying whatever they want. For young men, who are in inundated with rules on language and acceptable speech, they take to online spaces to rebel against these strict codes of verbal conduct. It is no different from Muslim men or conservative Christians who are told by their imams and pastors that porn is evil searching for pornography at higher rates than the rest of the population. If it has been prohibited, it becomes desirable. These young loud mouths, who are often quoted as yelling either "nigger" or "bitch, make me a sandwich", likely do not hold some deep hatred of blacks or women. If so, why are women finding increasing parity in workplaces? Why is white on black violence at historic lows?
These internet tough guys would likely cower at any demand of hard work from them. Why? I think online spaces provide sanctuary from the harshness of reality. Personal control over an environment and zero accountability leads to humans acting in strange ways--but only sometimes. For most of us, GTA V was not Carmageddon or Bash a Bitch 2014. It was a story line set in a parody environment. The story line was played through, side missions done, and little care was given to what other people thought of us and our choices. People choose the dark side in many different StarWars games, only because of the unique abilities granted them, distinct from the light side abilities. Using "did you choose dark side in Knights of the Old Republic?" as a litmus test of anti-social personality disorder would be insane.
I make this point to illustrate the great freedom online spaces and gaming provides to people. Now we can talk about why real harassment, blatant racism, and sexist language persists in online spaces. I'm guessing most people have made an inappropriate joke at an inappropriate time. The social backlash from doing so we felt, likely discouraging us from conducting ourselves in a similar manner in the future. For kids in online spaces, there is little being done to stop the language. Direct calls from fellow players rarely silences these kids. This is likely because of the lack of social cues present, such as eye contact, perception of authority, physical size, and (in non-voice environments) a lack of tone. Core elements for understanding social dis/approval are lost in online spaces. Simply stating, "Hey stop that" isn't enough.
So, the pattern continues: kids are taught to not be racist, to not hate women, to be tolerant of others, but then go home and scream "nigger" on Xbox Live. Personally, I believe this is due to a lack of leadership. Sure, part of it is an element of being a rebellious youth; the exposure to "don't do this" entices obstinate kids to act out. The lack of leadership, however, is evident. Take comparing highly structured group games (e.g., World of Warcraft) to contest games (e.g., Counter-Strike). When in a guild, where social acceptance is needed in order to reap the rewards of community efforts in raiding, if players were to act in a socially unacceptable manner, they would be removed, and thus denied access to content and loot. Conversely, quick contests like Counter-Strike does not require team play per se, so being accepted by your team is irrelevant--one must perform well to be accepted.
Leadership for youth can help shape the language they use online. Focusing the play style, developing techniques to out-play (not out flame) others, and teaching about community can go a long way. All the while, not giving into ridiculous SJW demands around protected persons. It isn't an impossible goal by any stretch. The first step is teaching kids to be respectful from infancy. Second, let kids play!--indoor, outdoor, sports, video games, board games, anything! Just let kids play and learn from the natural consequences of poor behaviour. Third, and this one is for the people who tend to look down on kids acting... well, like kids, is to accept that kids are not adults and do not have 30+ years of life experience to draw from. Kids will learn if we let them learn. We cannot merely beat our youth smarter, more tolerant, or better behaved.
The future isn't changing any time soon. This brings me to a side point that I will write on in detail in the coming weeks: resiliency. This is directed to those on the receiving end of the poor behaviour. The world is not a nice place and it is doubtful it ever will be. That is by no means justification to give up or not attempt to make it better. Instead, I would say that we must look inward first to determine what we can do as individuals to improve the situation. If we choose to be resilient, to not be easily offended, to not have our fragile egos shaken, then the actions of obstinate children will not affect us. Don't touch the poop or don't feed the trolls comes to mind here. Practice not reacting. Practice not reinforcing the behaviour of petulant kids. Not only will it help you online, it will make all interactions with the world better. In other words, stop being so easily offended by the existence of other people.
Time to close out: kids will be shits. It is part of growing up. We can't beat, pray, buy, or ignore their shitty behaviour away. What we can do is be patient, look for teaching opportunities, and steel ourselves to their antics. The gaming community is rapidly moving away from an anonymous wall between real life and in-game. It will not be long before we are our real names in Call of Duty, World of Warcraft (somewhat already area with your Battle.net login name), or even League of Legends. Figuring out successful strategies now to guide the gaming community as a whole to a better place will be important to rearing well adjusted children. More importantly, being proactive means debasing the SJW attempts to tie online racist language to real world, lifelong consequences. A scary future may be upon if we fail to understand these simple points.
This has an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Are "gamers" as an identity dying?
In short, no. Gamers are gamers because they play games. There is no wiggle room. It's like stating you are not a hockey fan but you spend your free time watching hockey, learning hockey stats, building fantasy hockey teams, writing hockey blogs, and calling into local sports radio shows. There is a spectrum from casual gamers, who play games that require limited practice, research, and time to engage in (e.g., Clash of Clans), to hardcore gamers, that study their game(s) of choice, practice it near-daily, and immerse themselves in the culture that organically grows out of a hobby which consumes that degree of time (e.g., World of Tanks, League of Legends). As long as there are games, there will be gamers.
During Sargon's conversation with Damion and Veemonro, Damion makes the argument that the gaming community acts against itself when it uses inherently racist jokes or jokes about rape. Damion's states his concern comes from the perception that is generated by such actions: onlookers will see the language being used, devoid of context, to conclude gaming, as a culture, is racist, homophobic, misogynistic, or intolerant. It is a fair observation, but I think it takes some fleshing out to respond to properly.
Online gaming and online spaces are truly unique in human history. Prior to the internet, if a man wanted to go to KKK rally, he would have to dress appropriately and leave his house. Now, racist individuals can merely log onto a forum and join fellow racists in expressing their mutual hate for a particular dermal difference. Online spaces allow one to be anonymous. Our theoretical KKK member could vent for hours online before going into work where he shares his work space with blacks, Asians, and women--none of whom will believe our online KKK member holds these beliefs.
Online spaces provide an extreme amount of intellectual freedom. Not that it is all smart, but there are almost no constraints preventing people from saying whatever they want. For young men, who are in inundated with rules on language and acceptable speech, they take to online spaces to rebel against these strict codes of verbal conduct. It is no different from Muslim men or conservative Christians who are told by their imams and pastors that porn is evil searching for pornography at higher rates than the rest of the population. If it has been prohibited, it becomes desirable. These young loud mouths, who are often quoted as yelling either "nigger" or "bitch, make me a sandwich", likely do not hold some deep hatred of blacks or women. If so, why are women finding increasing parity in workplaces? Why is white on black violence at historic lows?
These internet tough guys would likely cower at any demand of hard work from them. Why? I think online spaces provide sanctuary from the harshness of reality. Personal control over an environment and zero accountability leads to humans acting in strange ways--but only sometimes. For most of us, GTA V was not Carmageddon or Bash a Bitch 2014. It was a story line set in a parody environment. The story line was played through, side missions done, and little care was given to what other people thought of us and our choices. People choose the dark side in many different StarWars games, only because of the unique abilities granted them, distinct from the light side abilities. Using "did you choose dark side in Knights of the Old Republic?" as a litmus test of anti-social personality disorder would be insane.
I make this point to illustrate the great freedom online spaces and gaming provides to people. Now we can talk about why real harassment, blatant racism, and sexist language persists in online spaces. I'm guessing most people have made an inappropriate joke at an inappropriate time. The social backlash from doing so we felt, likely discouraging us from conducting ourselves in a similar manner in the future. For kids in online spaces, there is little being done to stop the language. Direct calls from fellow players rarely silences these kids. This is likely because of the lack of social cues present, such as eye contact, perception of authority, physical size, and (in non-voice environments) a lack of tone. Core elements for understanding social dis/approval are lost in online spaces. Simply stating, "Hey stop that" isn't enough.
So, the pattern continues: kids are taught to not be racist, to not hate women, to be tolerant of others, but then go home and scream "nigger" on Xbox Live. Personally, I believe this is due to a lack of leadership. Sure, part of it is an element of being a rebellious youth; the exposure to "don't do this" entices obstinate kids to act out. The lack of leadership, however, is evident. Take comparing highly structured group games (e.g., World of Warcraft) to contest games (e.g., Counter-Strike). When in a guild, where social acceptance is needed in order to reap the rewards of community efforts in raiding, if players were to act in a socially unacceptable manner, they would be removed, and thus denied access to content and loot. Conversely, quick contests like Counter-Strike does not require team play per se, so being accepted by your team is irrelevant--one must perform well to be accepted.
Leadership for youth can help shape the language they use online. Focusing the play style, developing techniques to out-play (not out flame) others, and teaching about community can go a long way. All the while, not giving into ridiculous SJW demands around protected persons. It isn't an impossible goal by any stretch. The first step is teaching kids to be respectful from infancy. Second, let kids play!--indoor, outdoor, sports, video games, board games, anything! Just let kids play and learn from the natural consequences of poor behaviour. Third, and this one is for the people who tend to look down on kids acting... well, like kids, is to accept that kids are not adults and do not have 30+ years of life experience to draw from. Kids will learn if we let them learn. We cannot merely beat our youth smarter, more tolerant, or better behaved.
The future isn't changing any time soon. This brings me to a side point that I will write on in detail in the coming weeks: resiliency. This is directed to those on the receiving end of the poor behaviour. The world is not a nice place and it is doubtful it ever will be. That is by no means justification to give up or not attempt to make it better. Instead, I would say that we must look inward first to determine what we can do as individuals to improve the situation. If we choose to be resilient, to not be easily offended, to not have our fragile egos shaken, then the actions of obstinate children will not affect us. Don't touch the poop or don't feed the trolls comes to mind here. Practice not reacting. Practice not reinforcing the behaviour of petulant kids. Not only will it help you online, it will make all interactions with the world better. In other words, stop being so easily offended by the existence of other people.
Time to close out: kids will be shits. It is part of growing up. We can't beat, pray, buy, or ignore their shitty behaviour away. What we can do is be patient, look for teaching opportunities, and steel ourselves to their antics. The gaming community is rapidly moving away from an anonymous wall between real life and in-game. It will not be long before we are our real names in Call of Duty, World of Warcraft (somewhat already area with your Battle.net login name), or even League of Legends. Figuring out successful strategies now to guide the gaming community as a whole to a better place will be important to rearing well adjusted children. More importantly, being proactive means debasing the SJW attempts to tie online racist language to real world, lifelong consequences. A scary future may be upon if we fail to understand these simple points.
This has an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Post 25 -- BLS for women, rough notes
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics released a comprehensive analysis of women in the American workforce in late December, 2014. It covers every angle of women's current role in the American workforce. This has particular interest for me as I continue to encounter two common narratives: women are underrepresented in the American workforce and women are paid less than men, usually something along the lines off 77 cents to every dollar made by a man.
The BLS December 2014 paper I will be referencing can be found here.
Firstly, on navigating my way to the tables, we come across, on page 2, the earnings note. Stated as clear as day, "In 2013, women who worked full time wage or salary jobs had a median usual weekly income of $706, which represents 82 percent of men's median weekly earnings ($860)." In aggregate (i.e., not taking into account any other factors such as overtime worked, age, education, profession, or tenure in a position), women make 82 cents for every man's dollar. Not 77 cents. 82 cents. Right off the kick we can see how much we have been lied to in regards to women's incomes.
From Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014 analysis, 39% (approx. 22.9 million) of women have a bachelor's degree or higher, whereas 34.7% (approx. 23.2 million) of men do. Not only that, just looking at the data for education attainment, the percentage of men who have bachelor's degrees or higher has seen declines and plateaus, which has likely slowed earning potentials for men. All values in percentages, plus the change from the previous year in parentheses:
Women, by comparison to the same time period, saw an average increase of .66 percentage points, year by year. Men, however, experienced only a .32 percentage points increase, year by year. Interesting, the difference between 1992 (27.8) and 2013 (34.7) for men with 4 year degrees or higher was only 6.9 percentage points. For women? 1992 (25.0) to 2013 (39.0) was a 14 percentage point increase. These increases fall in line with claims of every 2 degrees awarded to men there are 3 degrees awarded to women. Women are currently earning 59.9% of all 4 year college degrees. This trend is already showing impacts in the earnings and employment of women as compared to men. As more women attain higher education, the gains will continue to culminate, resulting in both an employment and earnings advantage for women.
Quick point on women making gains in earnings and employment: this is a slow turning ship. If you over-correct too hard, you will overshoot by a wide margin. The current trend suggests men will begin to fall behind in education attainment, earning power, and employability. Men lagging in these factors will close the lifetime earnings gap (not "wage gap" like some people say) in the short term, but will result in women earning significantly more than men in the long term. This lack of parity will not go unnoticed by men. Moreover, significant social problems do arise as male unemployment increases, which will be a natural consequence of women filling more work roles over men due to their higher education.
Now for some fun stats: women comprise 51.4% of all management positions, 57.1% of professional and related occupations (which includes an increasing number of women in computer science professions, database admins, and architecture), 74.4% of healthcare practitioners (from nurse aides to surgeons), and 73.3% of office administration roles (clerical to marketing lead). Oh, and the percentage of women working in harsh outdoor conditions, such as farming, construction, and mining, is 4.6%. By this data, I think women have less physically demanding jobs than men. That's male privilege right there! The privilege to work outside in brutal weather conditions and not in air conditioned offices!
In 1979, BLS estimated women made 62.3% of what men made, across all races. In 2013, that number has claimed to 82.1%--again, in aggregate, not taking into account all the nuanced factors. By race, though it's a slightly different story: Asian women to Asian men: 77.3%; white women compared to white men: 81.7%; Hispanic/Latino women to Hispanic/Latino men: 91.1%; and black women to black men: 91.3%. The trend of black and Hispanic/Latino women earning closer to their male counterparts was visible back in 1979, and is likely accounted for black and Hispanic/Latino men earning less than Asian and white men. It is still notable, though.
On page 61/62 of the report, there is a chart showing the differences in earnings between genders by education attainment. In every metric, women earn less than men. This table is assuming full time work for women 25 years of age and older. I bring this up because it is a table to watch in the next 5 years. While I am unable to find the particular article at this time (to which I apologize for), there are some preliminary numbers indicating 64 men employed for every 100 women in the 20-29 age group, and women out earning men by $1.07 to every male $1.00 earned. If that is the case, the BLS table will begin to show improvements over the coming couple of years. For example, women's median weekly income for full time workers in 2000 was $493. In 2013, it was $706. That is a 30.2% increase in earnings in 13 years. For men, they were earning $641 in 2000 and $860 in 2013, a 25.5% increase.
The table on page 64 is for median weekly earnings for women and men working full time by occupation. It includes every subset of employment field and a column for women's earnings to men. Based on the average weekly difference between men and women, we can assume many of these jobs will show women earning less than men, but there are some interesting variations:
The BLS December 2014 paper I will be referencing can be found here.
Firstly, on navigating my way to the tables, we come across, on page 2, the earnings note. Stated as clear as day, "In 2013, women who worked full time wage or salary jobs had a median usual weekly income of $706, which represents 82 percent of men's median weekly earnings ($860)." In aggregate (i.e., not taking into account any other factors such as overtime worked, age, education, profession, or tenure in a position), women make 82 cents for every man's dollar. Not 77 cents. 82 cents. Right off the kick we can see how much we have been lied to in regards to women's incomes.
From Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014 analysis, 39% (approx. 22.9 million) of women have a bachelor's degree or higher, whereas 34.7% (approx. 23.2 million) of men do. Not only that, just looking at the data for education attainment, the percentage of men who have bachelor's degrees or higher has seen declines and plateaus, which has likely slowed earning potentials for men. All values in percentages, plus the change from the previous year in parentheses:
- 1992: 27.8
- 1993: 28.1 (+0.3)
- 1994: 28.8 (+0.7)
- 1995: 29.4 (+0.6)
- 1996: 29.4 (+/- 0)
- 1997: 29.6 (+0.2)
- 1998: 30.3 (+0.7)
- 1999: 31.0 (+0.7)
- 2000: 31.2 (+0.2)
- 2001: 31.4 (+0.2)
- 2002: 31.8 (+0.4)
- 2003: 32.1 (+0.3)
- 2004: 32.3 (+0.2)
- 2005: 31.9 (-0.4)
- 2006: 32.3 (+0.4)
- 2007: 32.9 (+0.6)
- 2008: 33.0 (+0.1)
- 2009: 33.0 (+/-0)
- 2010: 33.0 (+/-0)
- 2011: 33.7 (+0.7)
- 2012: 34.1 (+0.4)
- 2013: 34.7 (+0.6)
Women, by comparison to the same time period, saw an average increase of .66 percentage points, year by year. Men, however, experienced only a .32 percentage points increase, year by year. Interesting, the difference between 1992 (27.8) and 2013 (34.7) for men with 4 year degrees or higher was only 6.9 percentage points. For women? 1992 (25.0) to 2013 (39.0) was a 14 percentage point increase. These increases fall in line with claims of every 2 degrees awarded to men there are 3 degrees awarded to women. Women are currently earning 59.9% of all 4 year college degrees. This trend is already showing impacts in the earnings and employment of women as compared to men. As more women attain higher education, the gains will continue to culminate, resulting in both an employment and earnings advantage for women.
Quick point on women making gains in earnings and employment: this is a slow turning ship. If you over-correct too hard, you will overshoot by a wide margin. The current trend suggests men will begin to fall behind in education attainment, earning power, and employability. Men lagging in these factors will close the lifetime earnings gap (not "wage gap" like some people say) in the short term, but will result in women earning significantly more than men in the long term. This lack of parity will not go unnoticed by men. Moreover, significant social problems do arise as male unemployment increases, which will be a natural consequence of women filling more work roles over men due to their higher education.
Now for some fun stats: women comprise 51.4% of all management positions, 57.1% of professional and related occupations (which includes an increasing number of women in computer science professions, database admins, and architecture), 74.4% of healthcare practitioners (from nurse aides to surgeons), and 73.3% of office administration roles (clerical to marketing lead). Oh, and the percentage of women working in harsh outdoor conditions, such as farming, construction, and mining, is 4.6%. By this data, I think women have less physically demanding jobs than men. That's male privilege right there! The privilege to work outside in brutal weather conditions and not in air conditioned offices!
In 1979, BLS estimated women made 62.3% of what men made, across all races. In 2013, that number has claimed to 82.1%--again, in aggregate, not taking into account all the nuanced factors. By race, though it's a slightly different story: Asian women to Asian men: 77.3%; white women compared to white men: 81.7%; Hispanic/Latino women to Hispanic/Latino men: 91.1%; and black women to black men: 91.3%. The trend of black and Hispanic/Latino women earning closer to their male counterparts was visible back in 1979, and is likely accounted for black and Hispanic/Latino men earning less than Asian and white men. It is still notable, though.
On page 61/62 of the report, there is a chart showing the differences in earnings between genders by education attainment. In every metric, women earn less than men. This table is assuming full time work for women 25 years of age and older. I bring this up because it is a table to watch in the next 5 years. While I am unable to find the particular article at this time (to which I apologize for), there are some preliminary numbers indicating 64 men employed for every 100 women in the 20-29 age group, and women out earning men by $1.07 to every male $1.00 earned. If that is the case, the BLS table will begin to show improvements over the coming couple of years. For example, women's median weekly income for full time workers in 2000 was $493. In 2013, it was $706. That is a 30.2% increase in earnings in 13 years. For men, they were earning $641 in 2000 and $860 in 2013, a 25.5% increase.
The table on page 64 is for median weekly earnings for women and men working full time by occupation. It includes every subset of employment field and a column for women's earnings to men. Based on the average weekly difference between men and women, we can assume many of these jobs will show women earning less than men, but there are some interesting variations:
- Wholesale and retail buyers, except farm products: 106.8%
- Computer occupations, all other: 103.5%
- Bakers: 107.4%
- (general category) Legal occupations: 57.3%
- Financial service, securities, commodities: 62.1%
An interesting hodgepodge of roles and variation. Notably, however, many high education jobs showed little deviation from median. In fact, most jobs which would be attainable by women through the ages of child rearing were close to the mean average earnings rate of 82.1%. Of course, if a woman drops out of the workforce for a period of time to raise children, then women will earn less over their lifetime, even while remaining in the same job. This accounts for similar to the mean rates for lawyers (78.9% rate of earnings to men), but a drop in earnings for women in magistrates, judges, or judicial workers (57.3%). Good lawyers with continual tenure tend to earn judicial positions, which takes more time for women to earn if they drop out of the work force for a couple of years in the middle of their careers.
More women (910,000) than men (622,000) work minimum wage jobs. However, much of this difference is found in the food service industry, where 558,000 women work and 325,000 men work in waitress/waiter positions. This can be misleading, as cash tips do not have to be claimed on tax returns, simply because of the difficulty in tracking. With more women in the role of server than men, we can assume those women earn more than men in tips, which does not go into account for the wage difference, which is pinned at 89.1%. This, of course, is a drop in the bucket to the aggregate number, but still worth noting in relation to the minimum wage positions.
One metric that does come up in married relationships (ya'know, that thing where 50% of the population can't seem to hold onto?) and the percentage of income contribution by women. In 1970, BLS reports women were responsible for contributing 26.6% of the household income. By 2012, that amount has risen to 37.3%. Women who are not working are included in this, which does greatly impact the overall statistics. Women who have chosen to remain at home to raise children will lower the overall contribution by all women to their married households.
This brings us to the differences in married couples earnings: In 2012, women and men who were both working full time jobs, 29% of wives were out earning this husbands. This is a sharp increase from 1987, where only 17.8% were out earning their husbands. This is across all age groups.
Alright, that's plenty for now. Some interesting numbers out of this. We do see the wage gap in specific professions, but there is no breakdown within the specific professions to tenure, average age of worker, or average overtime hours worked. When controlling for those factors, we are seeing almost no difference between the genders, especially in the 25 and older category. I expect that to change over time, as more women are gaining the requisite skills than men are for higher paying job, thus starting on the path to higher earnings earlier than men.
Post 24 -- "We're two steps out of the jungle, not two steps from utopia."
I have used that quote a few times in discussions to highlight several crucial points about human interactions, psychology, and biology. There are many people who go well out of their way to make the point that there are no differences between genders or sexes. Rather, all gender or sex characteristics are culturally driven, receiving no input from biological factors. Moreover, not only are our minds tabula rasa, emphasizing that out personalities are as well. This belief structure is then cloaked in a rather simple defensive strategy: "agree with us or you are a sexist". Why that approach? Well, it's one based on a experience, considering the research in sex differences from the early 1900s, which seemed to regularly come to the conclusion that the sexes were different and that men were better. The current efforts, however, are directed by honest inquiry, looking into the specific differences without placing an overarching value factor. For example, let's briefly look at spatial ability between men and women.
Men tend to have better spatial ability then women. That is, men are quicker at identifying trajectories of moving objects, avoiding distractors or blocks in left/right reaction tests, and navigating mazes than women. Many of these differences do disappear or are diminished once time constraints are removed. But this is only most men and most women. It is by no means all men and all women, an important distinction when dealing with gender activists. There are some traits which more men possess that assist men in some tasks. Strong spatial awareness skills, which come from well developed structures in the occipital and parietal lobes and much practice, allowed our early ancestors to hunt more effectively. Food meant survival and survival meant the passing on of genes. That's the element of biology.
Notice how this research looks at how a brain works, not how women's brains are less superior to men. Modern science is far better regulated than it was in the 1900s. This has not changed the minds of gender activists, though. They are more than willing to label someone as a sexist for investigating innate differences in brains and behaviors between men and women. It is part of the SJWs 3 S System: shame, scare, and silence. This technique worked well enough to get the man who landed a probe on a comet to apologize for his shirt choice during the event.
This did get me thinking. Something clicked during some YouTube browsing. A SJW made some comment about humans not being born with prejudice. Bam! This was a position I held for a long time, but it is in direct opposition to with my statements regarding innate elements of human biology, physiology, psychology, and development. In fact, we are born with pre-set prejudice. This simple element allowed certain tribes to protect themselves from other tribes, whether out of fear of being killed or the strange and random horrific deaths that would follow recent contact with new tribes (which we now understand as disease and the germ theory of disease). These are born-in states for us to inherently adhere to the in-group and either hate or fear the out-group.
One measure one can use to determine if he/she is a good person is to see if he/she have overcome their inherent tribalism, his/her hate or fear of the out-group. Many people do, although it is a struggle. Just as we can learn to hate certain people, we can learn to love all people. Learn that this struggle isn't "us versus them". Rather, this struggle is only us and us versus ourselves. To rise above tribalism is a great feat, not one yet mastered by the majority.
SJWs are one group who have failed to break out of their lowly origins. Rather than breaking the biological shackles of prejudice, they have decided to call those chains jewelry, and celebrate all who wear them. In effect, SJWs have created a culture for themselves to by the righteous in-group, craft strawmen which represent almost no one, and generalize to the out-group, calling all men 'sexists', all whites 'racist', all straight people 'homophobic' or 'transphobic'. These people are no better than our ancestors who fought over different interpretations of scripture, willfully destroying themselves in an effort to silence the others.
We barely evolved enough to create a society as vast as ours today. We are a global civilization. The challenges which lay ahead for us are great individual barriers. Can each member of our society break away from our very biological evolution and end our prejudice? The very people who are the most vocal about social justice couldn't. I do not despair, though: I think we will be able to connect with most of those social justice warriors. Even dialogue and discourse will win out. The tactics used to convey this message will matter: do we subvert our message to accommodate their offense, or do we remain even, honest, and sincere?
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Men tend to have better spatial ability then women. That is, men are quicker at identifying trajectories of moving objects, avoiding distractors or blocks in left/right reaction tests, and navigating mazes than women. Many of these differences do disappear or are diminished once time constraints are removed. But this is only most men and most women. It is by no means all men and all women, an important distinction when dealing with gender activists. There are some traits which more men possess that assist men in some tasks. Strong spatial awareness skills, which come from well developed structures in the occipital and parietal lobes and much practice, allowed our early ancestors to hunt more effectively. Food meant survival and survival meant the passing on of genes. That's the element of biology.
Notice how this research looks at how a brain works, not how women's brains are less superior to men. Modern science is far better regulated than it was in the 1900s. This has not changed the minds of gender activists, though. They are more than willing to label someone as a sexist for investigating innate differences in brains and behaviors between men and women. It is part of the SJWs 3 S System: shame, scare, and silence. This technique worked well enough to get the man who landed a probe on a comet to apologize for his shirt choice during the event.
This did get me thinking. Something clicked during some YouTube browsing. A SJW made some comment about humans not being born with prejudice. Bam! This was a position I held for a long time, but it is in direct opposition to with my statements regarding innate elements of human biology, physiology, psychology, and development. In fact, we are born with pre-set prejudice. This simple element allowed certain tribes to protect themselves from other tribes, whether out of fear of being killed or the strange and random horrific deaths that would follow recent contact with new tribes (which we now understand as disease and the germ theory of disease). These are born-in states for us to inherently adhere to the in-group and either hate or fear the out-group.
One measure one can use to determine if he/she is a good person is to see if he/she have overcome their inherent tribalism, his/her hate or fear of the out-group. Many people do, although it is a struggle. Just as we can learn to hate certain people, we can learn to love all people. Learn that this struggle isn't "us versus them". Rather, this struggle is only us and us versus ourselves. To rise above tribalism is a great feat, not one yet mastered by the majority.
SJWs are one group who have failed to break out of their lowly origins. Rather than breaking the biological shackles of prejudice, they have decided to call those chains jewelry, and celebrate all who wear them. In effect, SJWs have created a culture for themselves to by the righteous in-group, craft strawmen which represent almost no one, and generalize to the out-group, calling all men 'sexists', all whites 'racist', all straight people 'homophobic' or 'transphobic'. These people are no better than our ancestors who fought over different interpretations of scripture, willfully destroying themselves in an effort to silence the others.
We barely evolved enough to create a society as vast as ours today. We are a global civilization. The challenges which lay ahead for us are great individual barriers. Can each member of our society break away from our very biological evolution and end our prejudice? The very people who are the most vocal about social justice couldn't. I do not despair, though: I think we will be able to connect with most of those social justice warriors. Even dialogue and discourse will win out. The tactics used to convey this message will matter: do we subvert our message to accommodate their offense, or do we remain even, honest, and sincere?
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Post 23 -- Hitchens and the "Personal is Political"
I am a proud owner of the Quotable Hitchens, a great book of impressively produced quotes by Hitchens throughout his career. In the modern day efforts of reactionary Social Justice Warriors, from GamerGate, to Dr. Taylor's "offensive and ostracizing" shit, to "metalheads are what's wrong with metal", the term "personal is political" is thrown around as easily as the term "misogyny".
Before I get into the Hitchens' quotes, something I will do leading up to his death day, I want to give a solid example of how "the personal is political" is about feelings and devoid of reason. Faggot. That word is used extensively. Originally used to describe a tightly bound bundle of sticks (sometimes for the purpose of fire building), the stick/dick rhyme and stick-on-stick imagery was applied to homosexual men. Well, almost exclusively in American; but in the United Kingdom, the term fag was derived more to the burning element of the original description and applied to cigarettes. Faggot is currently viewed as a derogatory word against homosexuals, and some argue that the flippant use of it in online spaces and in school yards between men only reinforce the negative and denigrating connotation of the word.
This, however, shows how some do not recognize how words and language evolve. Otherwise meaningless words can be changed into hurtful ones while intentionally harmful words can be co-opted and "taken back" into positive ones. Ratchet, the helpful tool, is also used as a slur against "ghetto women" who believe they are "every man's eye candy", and is applied to any woman who acts in a similar manner. On the other side, the word queer was used as a disparaging term against homosexuals of both genders, but was re-purposed by the LGBTQ community as a word that, to them, carry no harm. Words and their meanings are somewhat flexible--we won't be swapping the meaning of verbs any time soon, but certain nouns can take on or lose given meanings and, in some cases, turned into verbs themselves.
Back to faggot, though. It is a favourite word of those in online spaces, particularly image boards (e.g., 8chan). The usage there has nothing to do with sexual orientation but to do with ones usefulness to the conversation. Acting in a meaningless way, not thinking for one's self, or intentionally attempting to block or disrupt a conversation will result in being called a faggot. Here's Louis C.K.'s take on the word:
(Quotes taken from The Quotable Hitchens (Cambridge, MA: Windsor Mann, 2011))
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Before I get into the Hitchens' quotes, something I will do leading up to his death day, I want to give a solid example of how "the personal is political" is about feelings and devoid of reason. Faggot. That word is used extensively. Originally used to describe a tightly bound bundle of sticks (sometimes for the purpose of fire building), the stick/dick rhyme and stick-on-stick imagery was applied to homosexual men. Well, almost exclusively in American; but in the United Kingdom, the term fag was derived more to the burning element of the original description and applied to cigarettes. Faggot is currently viewed as a derogatory word against homosexuals, and some argue that the flippant use of it in online spaces and in school yards between men only reinforce the negative and denigrating connotation of the word.
This, however, shows how some do not recognize how words and language evolve. Otherwise meaningless words can be changed into hurtful ones while intentionally harmful words can be co-opted and "taken back" into positive ones. Ratchet, the helpful tool, is also used as a slur against "ghetto women" who believe they are "every man's eye candy", and is applied to any woman who acts in a similar manner. On the other side, the word queer was used as a disparaging term against homosexuals of both genders, but was re-purposed by the LGBTQ community as a word that, to them, carry no harm. Words and their meanings are somewhat flexible--we won't be swapping the meaning of verbs any time soon, but certain nouns can take on or lose given meanings and, in some cases, turned into verbs themselves.
Back to faggot, though. It is a favourite word of those in online spaces, particularly image boards (e.g., 8chan). The usage there has nothing to do with sexual orientation but to do with ones usefulness to the conversation. Acting in a meaningless way, not thinking for one's self, or intentionally attempting to block or disrupt a conversation will result in being called a faggot. Here's Louis C.K.'s take on the word:
Again, in the context that Louis C.K. is talking about, faggot has nothing to do with sexuality or sexual orientation. It is a word used to point out a person who is acting in a weak, pedantic, whiny, cowardly, or any otherwise annoying manner--again, nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Enter SJWs: because there are homosexuals who feel the word faggot is a slur against them, they make that personal element political. This action directly leads to attempts to censor the use of the word in nearly every context. We are seeing that in the recent issue regarding metal (genre of music): The Problem With Heavy Metal Is Metalheads: Stop Calling Everyone A Faggot.
Here are Hitchens's thoughts on the "personal is political".
"The idea that 'the personal is political'--and idea that emerged in an era of post-1960s depoliticization--has come to mean that personal identity or preference is a sufficient political commitment." - "Missionary Positions", Wilson Quarterly, Winter 1991
"In the meanwhile, of course, the political has conversely become personalized with the result that public affairs are dominated by celebrity-style posturing." - "Radical Pique, Vanity Fair, February 1994
"I remember very well the first time I heard the saying 'The Personal is Political'. It began as a sort of reaction to the defeats and downturns that followed 1968: a consolation prize, as you might say, for people who had missed that year. I knew in my bones that a truly Bad Idea had entered the discourse. Nor was I wrong. People began to stand up at meetings and orate about how they felt, not about what or how they thought, and about who they were rather than what (if anything) they had done or stood for. It became the replication in even less interesting form of narcissism of the small difference, because each identity group begat its subgroups and 'specificities'." - Letters to a Young Contrarian, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 112-113
"From now on, it would be enough to be a member of a sex of gender, or epidermal subdivision, or even erotic 'preference', to qualify as a revolutionary. In order to begin a speech or to ask a question from the floor, all that would be necessary by way of preface would be the words: 'Speaking as a ...' Then could follow any self-loving description." Hitch-22, (New York: Twelve, 2010), 121
(Quotes taken from The Quotable Hitchens (Cambridge, MA: Windsor Mann, 2011))
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Post 22 -- In dealings with "Social Justice Warriors"
In my previous post, I wrote a rapid reply to the Ra Men Podcast and Mr. James Croft of St. Louis Ethical Society. The particular podcast can be found here. In brief, Aron and Mark spoke with four members of the Ferguson community on the issues surrounding the murder of Mr. Michael Brown and grand jury's choice not to indict Officer Darren Wilson. Most of the discussion was focused on variations of "oppression" suffered by only blacks (ignoring the 28% white population in Ferguson) at the hands of only whites. There were no solutions offered by the two individuals who identified themselves as "community leaders".
I pointed this out in a reply to the video and again to Mr. Croft on Twitter. I like to believe I take a Stoic's approach when entering online discussions as an even temperament lends itself far more to discussion than trolling/flaming. In my responses specific to Mr. Croft, I focused on his rhetoric and ideas--those of "privilege" and of "white privilege". I am not someone who buys into the Social Privilege Theory. Rather, I feel it to be meaningless ravings done mostly by the people who fall into the highest tiers of privilege. Moreover, it is a pathetic escape tactic by the unintelligent, whereby they need only claim that one's "privilege" prevents them from understanding. Yes, because being a white man means I completely lack empathy and sympathy.
The Social Privilege Theory is frequently employed by Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). Now, within the SJW community it comes across as a powerful social factor, and the ability to explain privilege is considered enough to cause tectonic shifts in social policy. Outside of the SJW cult hall, calling out someone's privilege is an act of shaming in their eyes. Shaming, of course, is considered one of the pillars of bullying, along with threats, coercion, and force. For the SJW perspective, shaming is a fair play simply because one with privilege engages in invisible or unconscious shaming of those with less privilege. This is patently ridiculous on several levels.
Privilege does not exist in the terms held by these SJWs, who view it as a society wide issue. Certain individuals posses preferences, opinions, or beliefs that may view others as below or above them. That, however, does not mean everyone with a superficial similarity (e.g., skin colour, gender) also posses that identical preferences, opinions, or beliefs. The one privilege that does exist is wealth or financial privilege. Ironically (or not), the loudest voices claiming the damage caused by "white, heterosexual, cis-male privilege" come from those of wealth (e.g., Ms. Quinn, Ms. Sarkeesian, Mr. Mcintosh, Mr. Lifshitz, Mrs. Wu).
Now, I decided to write this little post because of my exchange with Mr. Croft. Here's the first part:
I pointed this out in a reply to the video and again to Mr. Croft on Twitter. I like to believe I take a Stoic's approach when entering online discussions as an even temperament lends itself far more to discussion than trolling/flaming. In my responses specific to Mr. Croft, I focused on his rhetoric and ideas--those of "privilege" and of "white privilege". I am not someone who buys into the Social Privilege Theory. Rather, I feel it to be meaningless ravings done mostly by the people who fall into the highest tiers of privilege. Moreover, it is a pathetic escape tactic by the unintelligent, whereby they need only claim that one's "privilege" prevents them from understanding. Yes, because being a white man means I completely lack empathy and sympathy.
The Social Privilege Theory is frequently employed by Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). Now, within the SJW community it comes across as a powerful social factor, and the ability to explain privilege is considered enough to cause tectonic shifts in social policy. Outside of the SJW cult hall, calling out someone's privilege is an act of shaming in their eyes. Shaming, of course, is considered one of the pillars of bullying, along with threats, coercion, and force. For the SJW perspective, shaming is a fair play simply because one with privilege engages in invisible or unconscious shaming of those with less privilege. This is patently ridiculous on several levels.
Privilege does not exist in the terms held by these SJWs, who view it as a society wide issue. Certain individuals posses preferences, opinions, or beliefs that may view others as below or above them. That, however, does not mean everyone with a superficial similarity (e.g., skin colour, gender) also posses that identical preferences, opinions, or beliefs. The one privilege that does exist is wealth or financial privilege. Ironically (or not), the loudest voices claiming the damage caused by "white, heterosexual, cis-male privilege" come from those of wealth (e.g., Ms. Quinn, Ms. Sarkeesian, Mr. Mcintosh, Mr. Lifshitz, Mrs. Wu).
Now, I decided to write this little post because of my exchange with Mr. Croft. Here's the first part:
Mr. Croft appears to have been generous with his time and stated he both read and replied to my posting. This looked to be promising for me to have some discussion with his views contrasted with mine. Unfortunately, it was not to be the case. I immediately went to my page and see if there were any comments waiting moderation and to check my settings.
As shown here, my comments are open to anyone and never require moderation. I like discussion and feel that I can learn from being wrong. It came across as strange to me that the comment was lost. I originally gave Mr. Croft the benefit of doubt, and continued to ask for a response. At first the conversation came across as friendly:
I did not want to dismiss Mr. Croft. I continued to press for the reply in a friendly and open matter.
Here I remain open to discussion. I did not feel I targeted Mr. Croft on a personal level. Rather, that I focused on words he said, in context, and why his approach was not the best for improving the situation in Ferguson. I believe between the YouTube post and Post 21, I used about 400 words specifically to Mr. Croft, while the rest were either dedicated towards another individual, to the situation, or the my solutions. Again, I was seeking conversation on the matter and in a stoic manner; I argue the central points of people's arguments and avoid falling to weak ad hominem attacks.
The conclusion. I did not edit my post to cleanse it of any personal attacks. My post is how it was when Mr. Croft claimed to have read it. Still, I attempted to open to Mr. Croft for discussion. Then he reminded me of something: SJWs and their ilk are ideologues. So steeped in their rhetoric they are unable to discern the difference between criticism of ideas and criticism of their person. They shout aloud that you've "offended" (i.e., "denigrate", "disparage") them not as a means to correct the direction of the conversation by as a tactic to derail it entirely. There are no winners here and nothing for either parties to learn when this happens. It is an intellectually cowardly and dishonest act.
SJWs are trouble. We know this from #GamerGate, from Occupy Wall Street, and from the new Puritan policies coming into effect on college campuses. No person has a right to not be offended. It is the height of arrogance to think one particular group or person deserves special treatment or protection from such speech. Yet, SJWs forge ahead, drawing deeper and deeper lines between groups, dividing people up in unnecessary ways. When challenged, they cry foul because they were offended, and proceed to walk away in a false victory.
I have no doubt that Mr. Croft is an intelligent and passionate man. However, these actions I am seeing him engage are intellectually cowardly. If Mr. Croft does reply to this or Post 21, or if Blogger finds the lost post (if there was a post lose to begin with), I will happily redact and apologize for this paragraph. Until that time, however, I am left with another encounter with a person who claims offense at the mere criticism of his ideas in context. No rebuttal, no solutions.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Post 21 -- To the Ra Men Podcast
This is a follow up response to my Twitter conversation with the Ra Men Podcast, Aron Ra, and James Croft.
Episode 11 of the Ra Men Podcast featured a different format: rather than the usual single guest interviewed by Aron, Mark, and/or Lilandra, Episode 11 included several members in a panel-style discussion on the recent happenings in Ferguson, MO. The podcast stayed within its normal hour long time, which likely limited the amount of in-depth discussion on particular issues in Ferguson. My qualm is not with format or the time limit, but instead with the rhetoric being stated by some of the guests.
Here's my statement I placed on the video comments:
When there is a lack of critical analysis on the leaders of any movement, leaders are left with a carte blanche for their messages and actions. Mrs. Crutchfield, who admitted she was on the ground daily in Ferguson, is doing a disservice to her community by allowing her anger with the situation to impair her judgement and also by allowing the personal to become political. In the podcast, Mrs. Crutchfield makes the flippant statement that she is afraid of white police officers pulling her over while driving. This does not equate racism in the police force; rather, that only shows one woman's (mostly unjustified) fear.
Mr. Croft also factors into this. He attempts to play the "white privilege" game, whereby he engages in the mental gymnastics of condemning whites (seems rather racist, to me) while disassociating himself from that group. The only thing he didn't do was whip himself. The "privilege" game is wasteful and absolutely ineffective simply because it makes the personal political. Why is that bad? It is a terrible idea because the call for change that comes from the personal being political will only be accepted if it precisely matches what the personal desires were in the first place. The best example of this is abortion rights for women: one side argued it was up to the individual to decide for herself while the other side state their god would be angered and thus that made them uncomfortable. Clear as mud!
Now, here are some reasons why anger is only a destructive force in Ferguson, and I'll do my best to not bring too much of the Stoics mindset into this. Allowing anger in justifies the destruction and violence we've seen so far. Moreover, that same anger propels people into accepting they are oppressed by tapping into their anger. A group of people who feel oppressed will fight back. It is a vicious cycle. The damage caused is extensive, of course. The price of business is extremely high when there is a reasonable chance for riots. Business insurance goes up, making the cost of running a business in Ferguson even more expensive. The surrounding land value drops due to the poor business prospects, which effectively drives out individuals and families who view their homes as investments. Fewer homeowners in Ferguson leads to a smaller tax collection by the city, which directly impacts the city's ability to finance basic infrastructure. As city programs grind to a halt, the city becomes even less desirable to remain in, ultimately driving out more people and acts to turn new comers away. This cycle continues until the city is forced to seek alternatives to make up the difference in operating budget. It cannot look to increasing property taxes in the city as the city has high unemployment, nor can it increase business taxes and fees (which furthers the difficulty for businesses).
Now, that is a grim picture I've illustrated. And I've done it in a way that is entirely devoid of a particular racial group. In other words, it can happen anywhere and to anyone. But this is the moment where we see the opportunity to change matters in Ferguson. We know the city has decided to use traffic tickets as a means of generating revenue. As such, a memo goes out to local police ordering them to be hypersensitive (no proof of this, of course, but it is a reasonable assumption) to all traffic violations. Political change on this point reshapes the relationship between the community and law enforcement; rather than threatening layoffs to police due to an impending lack of funding if those tickets aren't issued, police will be encouraged to work on building rapport in the community--to view the community as people rather than potential government revenue.
Again, I've laid this out without mentioning of race. Does a black man in Ferguson not have a job because he is black? Absolutely not. A black man in Ferguson doesn't have a job because there are not enough jobs in Ferguson. Understand that Ferguson is 67% black. For black men, 17.8% are unemployed. 28% of the black population lives under the poverty line. The opportunities to escape are limited by the lack of wealth, not because of people being a given race. Dedicating substantial financial efforts to build the economy of Ferguson, bringing jobs to the young men of Ferguson, will bring greater community peace. Why only young men? Giving those men purpose keeps them off of the streets, away from drugs, out of fights (or worse escalation), and focused on improving their chances and their families chances. More importantly, however, is they become role models for other young black men in the area.
Much of this might seem vapid, but I argue that is because of the inherent bias being brought in. I am not black. I am not American, either (although I do live in the United States now). My history is different. That does not mean I cannot bring reasonable solutions to the table, though. The greatest moral failing with the protesters' side of the Ferguson situation is their ridiculous attitudes on "privilege", which creates enemies out of allies and silences good ideas because of someone's skin colour. After all, if the fight is about racial equality (not tolerance), better treatment by (white) police of (black) citizens, then anyone's idea which addresses these problems and attempts to provide solutions ought to be considered.
One last point before closing: the problem within the police is separate to the problems in Ferguson (i.e., low employment, high poverty, no social mobility). Following Michael Brown's death, those two problems intersected at their most volatile. The police have many problems that I will not mention here, but will at some point. This purpose of this post was to lay out two simple facts: Ferguson has significant governmental and political problems which hurts the economy, and thus social mobility (i.e., "hope") and that relying on racist rhetoric (e.g., "white police officers are causing this") pushes away those who would otherwise be sympathetic to assisting in political change.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Episode 11 of the Ra Men Podcast featured a different format: rather than the usual single guest interviewed by Aron, Mark, and/or Lilandra, Episode 11 included several members in a panel-style discussion on the recent happenings in Ferguson, MO. The podcast stayed within its normal hour long time, which likely limited the amount of in-depth discussion on particular issues in Ferguson. My qualm is not with format or the time limit, but instead with the rhetoric being stated by some of the guests.
Here's my statement I placed on the video comments:
Harsh rhetoric from myself, too. My goal with the above statement was to focus in on and dismantle the belief that righteous anger is a justified emotion to be held the the on-the-ground leaders. It cannot be stated enthusiastically enough: leaders must act with reason and purpose, not with anger or indignation. Emotions are fine at driving a person, but they must be left out of the decision making process. This was clearly evidenced in Mrs. Crutchfield's willingness to "fan the flames". Ferguson deserves leaders, not cheer teams.The statement by Mr. Croft that "everyone else's experience is not the exactly the same as yours" being equated to a justification for the "indiscriminate slaughter" of a given minority was laughable. Vapid statements like these do nothing to work towards resolving the problems we are seeing in police forces around the United States. It is merely inflammatory rhetoric which has its genesis in the weak "social privilege" theory--a theory which is devoid of action.
I'm miffed about this episode. It is an important topic, but it was terribly mishandled. Aron, who usually demands clear, empirical evidence, bows to people who fall outside his "white privilege" (i.e., people who are higher up on the "progressive stack") and allows them to rail off anecdotal evidence unchallenged. Mrs. Crutchfield said her goal was to "fan the flames". Has she not considered that the "flames being fanned" might be detrimental to fixing this problem? In all of this, Mrs. Crutchfield came across as the most overtly racist with her generalized statements about white people. She comes across as lacking introspection and self awareness.
Let us employ Occam's Razor by asking which is more likely: (a) police officers are inherently racist, which is why they are more vicious towards blacks or other minorities, or (b) police officers are grossly under trained and lack interpersonal skills when it comes to conflict resolution, leading to excessive use of force at times. Both options are systemic problems and both can be corrected.
Thanks for discussing this; however, the quality of this particular episode was by far the worst thus far in terms in challenging material and insightful discussion.
When there is a lack of critical analysis on the leaders of any movement, leaders are left with a carte blanche for their messages and actions. Mrs. Crutchfield, who admitted she was on the ground daily in Ferguson, is doing a disservice to her community by allowing her anger with the situation to impair her judgement and also by allowing the personal to become political. In the podcast, Mrs. Crutchfield makes the flippant statement that she is afraid of white police officers pulling her over while driving. This does not equate racism in the police force; rather, that only shows one woman's (mostly unjustified) fear.
Mr. Croft also factors into this. He attempts to play the "white privilege" game, whereby he engages in the mental gymnastics of condemning whites (seems rather racist, to me) while disassociating himself from that group. The only thing he didn't do was whip himself. The "privilege" game is wasteful and absolutely ineffective simply because it makes the personal political. Why is that bad? It is a terrible idea because the call for change that comes from the personal being political will only be accepted if it precisely matches what the personal desires were in the first place. The best example of this is abortion rights for women: one side argued it was up to the individual to decide for herself while the other side state their god would be angered and thus that made them uncomfortable. Clear as mud!
Now, here are some reasons why anger is only a destructive force in Ferguson, and I'll do my best to not bring too much of the Stoics mindset into this. Allowing anger in justifies the destruction and violence we've seen so far. Moreover, that same anger propels people into accepting they are oppressed by tapping into their anger. A group of people who feel oppressed will fight back. It is a vicious cycle. The damage caused is extensive, of course. The price of business is extremely high when there is a reasonable chance for riots. Business insurance goes up, making the cost of running a business in Ferguson even more expensive. The surrounding land value drops due to the poor business prospects, which effectively drives out individuals and families who view their homes as investments. Fewer homeowners in Ferguson leads to a smaller tax collection by the city, which directly impacts the city's ability to finance basic infrastructure. As city programs grind to a halt, the city becomes even less desirable to remain in, ultimately driving out more people and acts to turn new comers away. This cycle continues until the city is forced to seek alternatives to make up the difference in operating budget. It cannot look to increasing property taxes in the city as the city has high unemployment, nor can it increase business taxes and fees (which furthers the difficulty for businesses).
Now, that is a grim picture I've illustrated. And I've done it in a way that is entirely devoid of a particular racial group. In other words, it can happen anywhere and to anyone. But this is the moment where we see the opportunity to change matters in Ferguson. We know the city has decided to use traffic tickets as a means of generating revenue. As such, a memo goes out to local police ordering them to be hypersensitive (no proof of this, of course, but it is a reasonable assumption) to all traffic violations. Political change on this point reshapes the relationship between the community and law enforcement; rather than threatening layoffs to police due to an impending lack of funding if those tickets aren't issued, police will be encouraged to work on building rapport in the community--to view the community as people rather than potential government revenue.
Again, I've laid this out without mentioning of race. Does a black man in Ferguson not have a job because he is black? Absolutely not. A black man in Ferguson doesn't have a job because there are not enough jobs in Ferguson. Understand that Ferguson is 67% black. For black men, 17.8% are unemployed. 28% of the black population lives under the poverty line. The opportunities to escape are limited by the lack of wealth, not because of people being a given race. Dedicating substantial financial efforts to build the economy of Ferguson, bringing jobs to the young men of Ferguson, will bring greater community peace. Why only young men? Giving those men purpose keeps them off of the streets, away from drugs, out of fights (or worse escalation), and focused on improving their chances and their families chances. More importantly, however, is they become role models for other young black men in the area.
Much of this might seem vapid, but I argue that is because of the inherent bias being brought in. I am not black. I am not American, either (although I do live in the United States now). My history is different. That does not mean I cannot bring reasonable solutions to the table, though. The greatest moral failing with the protesters' side of the Ferguson situation is their ridiculous attitudes on "privilege", which creates enemies out of allies and silences good ideas because of someone's skin colour. After all, if the fight is about racial equality (not tolerance), better treatment by (white) police of (black) citizens, then anyone's idea which addresses these problems and attempts to provide solutions ought to be considered.
One last point before closing: the problem within the police is separate to the problems in Ferguson (i.e., low employment, high poverty, no social mobility). Following Michael Brown's death, those two problems intersected at their most volatile. The police have many problems that I will not mention here, but will at some point. This purpose of this post was to lay out two simple facts: Ferguson has significant governmental and political problems which hurts the economy, and thus social mobility (i.e., "hope") and that relying on racist rhetoric (e.g., "white police officers are causing this") pushes away those who would otherwise be sympathetic to assisting in political change.
This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)