Post 29 -- Preliminary cultural relativistic argument from social justice warriors

When I'm driving around doing errands (today's was acquiring more high-reflective gear for my biking), I have a habit of defragging my brain by speaking out random thoughts. Immediately prior to leaving, I had been listening to Mykeru's newest video regarding the Honey Badgers' expulsion from the Calgary Comic Expo. His violent and pointed wit sounded around Amanda Marcotte and the social justice mentality. It got me thinking: what is the process by which social justice warriors come to their state of abject human failures--oh, I mean, "moral superiority"?

Now, this wasn't as easy as some might make it look. Of course, those who have stared directly into the vapid sun that is social justice without going blind can do it well, such as the always excellent Jim, (jim81jim/Internet Aristocrat/Mister Metokur) can do an excellent job. I went to school at the liberal but respected University of British Columbia in the early to mid-2000s. The movement was already on to start "protecting" certain people's voices and ears for the views of others. There was a prevailing view on campus that the right was inherently bad, especially those war-mongering American Republicans. That was my first contact. Forensic psychology classes where a female classmate would stand up and proclaim rape only to be a problem for women and we ought to teach men to just not rape. The talking points reached far and wide.

Social justice, as a pairing of words, sounds inherently good. It is inherently good, actually, as long as the blade isn't directed at yourself. Things went astray when a group of people decided enlightenment values were white, male, and oppressive and were no longer valid in today's world, which was not yet 'Marxist equal'. Another group of people who believed race or gender were reasons for oppression came into the mix and the discussions began. Suddenly, talking about someone's race as a reason for their status in life was now allowed. Not only allowed, by entirely devoid of that syrupy irony that ought to go along with it. Social justice became not about advocating for change, but for speaking on behalf of the oppressed.

Why is that person oppressed? It's because they're black--a minority here! Why is that person oppressed? It's because she's a woman and this is the patriarchy! This narrative, so easily spun a Parkinsonian could accomplish it, scrubbed people of their individuality and turned them into coloured or gendered pieces on their own person political game board. When "oppression" of a race occurred, our valiant social justice warriors would saddle up in their own Audi SUVs and charge to the streets to speak for black community as a whole. When the black community attempted to speak, our SJW troop would condescendingly speak down to the community as the community was not educated enough to speak for itself in an impactful manner.

Let's recap that last bit. A community suffers an injustice. Social justice steps up to call attention to the injustice. Those who suffered the injustice are not allowed to share their stories, experiences, grievances, or solutions to the issue. So we have a group which has suffered an injustice only to have another group come rolling in with a savior complex to dole out a second injustice. As the injustice is perpetuated, our social justice heroes see there is even more oppression than originally thought, and work harder to speak for the community--all the while ignoring the whole community. Down and down the spiral we go. This is all made better by simple fact that criticism of the antics or tactics of the social justice idiots is viewed not as criticism of their ideas or approach but of the community which they claim to represent. 'Don't like that we keep this native community quiet and spout our own story and political views? It's because you hate natives!' Yet another injustice brought upon that community!

The pattern forms and is noted by two characteristics: silencing and exploiting. As the community which has suffered the injustice is prevented from speaking they are also being used as a shield against criticism of the social justice nut jobs. Rather than economic exploitation of a racial group as seen from the 1800s, we're seeing a political exploitation via coopting and silencing. Who wins here? Not the communities, but the fake heroes of social justice. Their status increases as they are exposed to media. Individuals like Suey Park, Anita Sarkeesian, and even Al Sharpton all fall into this category: people who stoke the fires of injustice with language from Invader Zim:

Commander: Zim, you made the fires worse!

Zim: Worse... or better?

It's an interesting act of sophistry to speak in racist tones in a manner that sounds as if you are fighting against racism. It is entirely lost on social justice warriors that saying "whites are oppressive by their nature" is actually as racist as the phrase "blacks love fried chicken".

Universities have willingly gone along with the development of social justice on their campuses since the mid-90s. Again, "social justice", at the time, did not sound as Orwellian as it has turned out to be. The culture which is being fostered on these campuses and in the classrooms of gender studies, sociology, psychology (which denounces evolutionary psychology), and communications is one which lends itself to develop safe spaces, censorship for "bad ideas", and outright banning of certain ideas. It has created a culture which feeds into itself. This is the crux of the cultural relativism which I wrote of earlier: when it becomes safe to racist in the name of social justice or sexist in the name of progress then that idea has diverged from sound humanist and moral reasoning.

As we've seen from religious justifications for heinous acts against humanity (e.g., circumcision in the name of a covenant with God), cultural relativism allows groups to act in ways antithetical to morality. Rather, these cultures create their own understanding of morality. In the case of social justice warriors, being racist against whites, sexist against men, or spiteful towards straight people is fine if it is done in the name of advancing the place of minorities (i.e., non-white individuals within Europe and North America), women, or LGBT rights. What is lost here is there is no progress being made--punching down one group merely lends the appearance that the "oppressed group" is closer to the "oppressive group". No progress has been made!

Rational individuals must denounce this current breed of social justice. As a society, we must strive to enshrine enlightenment values to all humans. When second wave feminism was seeking equality, it was striving for universal rights because they are humans and not because they are women. Third/fourth wave feminism has deteriorated to demanding rights based on their sex when the moral approach calls for universal rights to be applied universally. After all, we're all humans before we're any other label. Let's fight to strip out pointless labels from laws and again fight from reasoned positions, advocating for universal rights.

This has been a (long) unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 28 -- A question for feminists on Islam, part one

While returning from my daily workout, I noticed a woman in my housing complex wearing a burka. A burka is Islamic garb for women which covers the entirety of the body, leaving only a slit in the head covering for the eyes (which, in some cultures, is covered with lace). Being an atheist, my mind began to swirl with the many thoughts that go along with such a religious or cultural expression.

Does she want to wear that?

Is it right for a culture to demand such compliance from a person?

Is she made to wear the burka or does she choose to?

The last question stuck. Choice in such a matter is an interesting discussion. For most women who wear some form of Islamic garb while living in the west it is a choice by their own words. Not uncommonly, these niqab or hijab wearing women are with taunted about their subservient status within Islam culture, or derided for not standing up to their culture, or are pitied by people expressing "tolerance". Still, it is the point on choice which is the hang up for me. Is it really a choice?

If a cultural norm is to engage in a specific act, does one have a choice to not engage in that act? Surely they do, as we humans have some degree of free will and--whether it is used or not--the gift of skepticism. For example, driving culture in North America calls on all drivers and (most) passengers to wear their seat belts. These restraints are crucial safety devices which greatly limit the severity of injuries during a motor vehicle accident. There are people, however, who choose to not wear their seat belts. I was made aware that the State of New Jersey does not require backseat passengers to wear seat belts. Anyways, the cultural norm is to strap in while in a car and those who don't are not only going against that norm but also against well founded scientific justification and clearly spelled out laws. Even so, these people are expressing a choice, just at a risk to themselves.

The reason I am focusing on a (straw) feminist to explain why modern gender (third or fourth wave) feminism is because of its inclination to defend adherents of Islam from societal criticism. As mentioned above, there are Islamic women who defend their wearing of spiritual clothing, which includes the all encompassing burka. My question simply is: does she choose to wear it?

It might seem as if I already answered it with the quip about western Islamic women. There is some nuance to this question, though. Forgive the jump to another subject here, but it is important to contextualize the importance of choice. Choice is only done when the individual can make an decision free of coercion. If a individual says ,"Give me your wallet or I'll stab you!", are you really making the free choice to handing over your wallet? If, and for the sake of some of the more radical feminists, is a woman consenting (i.e., freeing choosing to engage in) to sex if a man has threatened her with physical, emotional, or mental harm? Surely the answer is an emphatic NO! As long as there is coercion there is no choice.

Back to the burka now and a secondary question to my original: what are the consequences for not wearing the burka? If there are no non-spiritual consequences for failing to wear the burka, then the woman is making a choice free of coercion. (Quick note: spiritual consequences are significant to some individuals and will shape their motives for certain choices. While that is an important point, it is complex and difficult to untangle here and is not required for me to make my argument.) As the burka is important to some Islamic culture, just as the yamaka is important to some Jewish cultures, surely we can imply there would be consequences within the community as a whole if a woman chooses to not wear the ascribed garments. This might range from diminished status to expulsion to violence against the woman. More specifically, within Islamic communities which demand for women to be completely veiled (i.e., to wear the burka), the father, husband, eldest brother, or eldest son is responsible for the most of the actions of said woman. If this woman does not wear the burka, it is up to this male guardian to address the situation. While this may not always start with violence, there is undoubtedly some form of coercion taking place to have the woman don the burka and remain within cultural bounds.

As stated above, free choice cannot exist if there is coercion. If a woman "consents" to sex after being threatened with a violent beating, then it is not actually consent, thus not a free choice. The same standard applies here: if a woman chooses to wear the burka only because of the consequences of not wearing the burka, then it isn't a choice made free of coercion. Here in lies the double think of these Islamic apologists: they will loudly claim these woman have a right to express themselves in a matter in accordance to their culture, willfully ignoring the presence of grave consequences if these woman wish to do otherwise. Yet, when it comes to sex, any act which might even slightly influence a woman's choice on whether to consent is immediately labeled as coercion and completely undermines consent. Why this double-think? It is logically inconsistent!

If the goal of feminists is to ensure woman have the same rights and privileges as men, as understood from enlightenment philosophy and reasoning, then their drive ought to be to shore up and maintain female agency. Apologist reasoning for protection women's lack of agency in Islam undermines the core doctrine of feminism--not just gender feminism! Women's choices must be made entirely free of coercion if they are to be free. Of course, choices will always have consequences, but that does not mean all choices are made in a coercive manner. Gender feminism's approach to Islamic women's garments is a glaring example of the hypocrisy of third/fourth wave feminists and entirely undermines their position as moral arbiters.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 27 -- Thoughts from exposure to random idiocy.

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

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

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:

• 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

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:

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