There are often calls for more women to be placed in high ranking positions in business. Back in 2011 a report suggested that the percentage of women on board tables to 25%. If they don't they will "be missing out on a vast array of talent at their disposal."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/12560121
Why are they missing out on talent? Surely the men that are there have the talent they need, that is why they are there? If not wouldn't they hire more women on their own?
I should state at this point I'm actually in favour of more women being on the boards of major companies. I'm playing devil's advocate.
Women should be at the board table, not to statisfy some quota or because women are the same as men, but rather the reverse. There should be women on company boards because women are different. They have different attributes that men won't have. They usually have a different way of looking at things, a different way of evaluating and processing risk and many other different attributes. It is this that makes a balanced board room so useful. If women were exactly the same as men then a board room with 25% women would be no different, no better than one with 0%. It appears that lefties tend to get this.
So if it is so obvious to those on the left that a balance of men and women can help an organisation a serious question raises its head: If a board room of all men (or presumably all women) isn't as balanced as a board room with a mix, if they don't have the same variety of skills, approaches, strengths and benefits, does the same apply to a family?
Lefties tend to think that homosexual marriage is fantastic. There was a bill on adoption that was passed years ago, some wanted there to be reference to the importance of male role models in an adopted childs life, but this was rejected. How does this make sense? A board room is argued to be better for a balance of men and women, but parents can be 100% male or 100% female and that is fine? How can these two opinions be reconciled? Surely the attributes that make it beneficial to have women at the table of FTSE 100 companies are the same attributes that make it beneficial to have them as parents, and likewise with men. Obviously there will be individual examples where two good men can raise a child better than an awful couple made up of a man and woman. Just like there will be times when a board room full of men will be better than a mixed one, but we are talking about averages here. Does it not make sense that two men cannot behave like a man and a women, because women bring unique characteristics that men alone will not possess? Does not the same apply the other way around?
To deny that women bring their own skills and perspective to a company seems odd, to say they do not bring them to a family seems absurd. Why does the left on the one hand shout out the benefits of gender balance and then on the other hand pretend they do not exist?
Saturday, 2 November 2013
Tuesday, 9 July 2013
The obsession with immigration: Part II
So in part one I covered the basic issues. Why are the questions asked about immigration never the ones that actually count. In this section I move to my next point: skills.
The other arguement that people often discuss when considering immigration is the lack of skills in our country. 'Oh, how will business survive if we can't draw from those skilled, young, hardworking migrants?'. Somehow business is unable to survive without relying on importing people to do the work. Do I agree with this argument? Well actually once again I think to bother answering the question misses the real issue in the first place: we are a developed western nation, we have a mature education system (one of the best higher education systems in the whole world) and we spend a huge amount of money on educating our children, universally, I might add. Yet we're dependent on developing countries that have far more stretched resources and non-universal education systems in order to get enough skilled workers... how does that make sense?
If business cannot find the skilled workers it needs in this country surely the obvious question that needs answering is: why? Our country pours money into the education system, everyone has the opportunity to learn, almost everyone can read and write, why can't our people do the work?
If it is an issue with the type of education we receive (people studying [insert pointless qualification here] instead of training to become a plumber or software engineer) then don't we need to inform students about the jobs available and the demands that exist in order to ensure they have the best chance of getting employed in a job they will enjoy?
In the alternative if it is because our own citizens don't work as hard as immigrants, perhaps we need to ask questions about why they work so hard and we don't. I don't know what the answer will be, but if we don't look into it, you're not going to get the answer.
Finally there is another ethical issue at hand. Is it really fair for developing nations to spend their money on educating doctors and engineers and whatever else, just for a much richer nation to come along once they have finished their training and poach them? Training is expensive, and the host country no doubt needs doctors and engineers for its own companies and hospitals, is it fair to promote a immigration policy that allows poorer nations to pay for our doctors' training, when their own country's health standard is much lower than ours? Don't get me wrong, it is certainly cheaper for us, but I'm not sure whether that is justification.
Either way whenever I heard a discussion regarding immigration I wonder where the question of family and education comes in. Sadly, I find it usually (if not always) just doesn't come up at all... perhaps if we start asking the right questions we can start to get the right answers and we can finally let the issue of immigration take a back seat to other matters.
The other arguement that people often discuss when considering immigration is the lack of skills in our country. 'Oh, how will business survive if we can't draw from those skilled, young, hardworking migrants?'. Somehow business is unable to survive without relying on importing people to do the work. Do I agree with this argument? Well actually once again I think to bother answering the question misses the real issue in the first place: we are a developed western nation, we have a mature education system (one of the best higher education systems in the whole world) and we spend a huge amount of money on educating our children, universally, I might add. Yet we're dependent on developing countries that have far more stretched resources and non-universal education systems in order to get enough skilled workers... how does that make sense?
If business cannot find the skilled workers it needs in this country surely the obvious question that needs answering is: why? Our country pours money into the education system, everyone has the opportunity to learn, almost everyone can read and write, why can't our people do the work?
If it is an issue with the type of education we receive (people studying [insert pointless qualification here] instead of training to become a plumber or software engineer) then don't we need to inform students about the jobs available and the demands that exist in order to ensure they have the best chance of getting employed in a job they will enjoy?
In the alternative if it is because our own citizens don't work as hard as immigrants, perhaps we need to ask questions about why they work so hard and we don't. I don't know what the answer will be, but if we don't look into it, you're not going to get the answer.
Finally there is another ethical issue at hand. Is it really fair for developing nations to spend their money on educating doctors and engineers and whatever else, just for a much richer nation to come along once they have finished their training and poach them? Training is expensive, and the host country no doubt needs doctors and engineers for its own companies and hospitals, is it fair to promote a immigration policy that allows poorer nations to pay for our doctors' training, when their own country's health standard is much lower than ours? Don't get me wrong, it is certainly cheaper for us, but I'm not sure whether that is justification.
Either way whenever I heard a discussion regarding immigration I wonder where the question of family and education comes in. Sadly, I find it usually (if not always) just doesn't come up at all... perhaps if we start asking the right questions we can start to get the right answers and we can finally let the issue of immigration take a back seat to other matters.
Saturday, 6 July 2013
The obsession with immigration
Immigration is always news. I don't know what day you'll be reading this but if you check a few online papers it wouldn't be unlikely that at least one of them is running a story or report on something related to UK immigration. This is because of an age old debate that I'll just go over quickly so we're all on the same page:
People argue for immigration because we have an ageing population and a lack of certain skills. They say that if we bring in young hard working people from outside the country, they will help prop up our economy, earn tax pounds, pay for our NHS (particularly for those in old age) and balance out the demographic problem of an ageing population. Subtly, but usually not mentioned explicitly, it is also suggested that they work for less, so they keep prices down in certain industries too. This arguement is usually made by lefty liberal types. They are often well educated and have highly paid jobs, that is jobs that aren't going to be under threat from cheap immigrant labour.
On the other hand you have the opposition, this is split into two camps:
Working class: these guys are just annoyed that 'their' jobs are being filled by immigrants and that they are will to work for less.
Non-working class: these guys are more concerned about what will happen socially if you invite large number of people who may not share your countries common values, and let them settle without the need to integrate into the local culture.
You maybe wondering which side I'm about to come down on... give a guess. Go on....
Nope. Unless you said, none of the above, I'm afraid you didn't get it. While the discussion on immigration brings up these arguements on a regular basis, the thing that I want to highlight right now, are the questions that are never actually asked in these debates. The questions that some how seem to get ignored, despite the fact that they seem to be the most important fundamental questions under pinning the whole issue.
If we have a demographic problem, where our population is ageing, surely the question that needs to be asked is... why isn't anyone having children any more? Does that not make sense? The reason why we have an ageing population is because people are not having at least two children. Why? What has our society done to destroy the value in having children? What has happened to our concept of the family and what is important in life to make it so that we as a society don't bother having one anymore? We could bring immigrants in if we wanted, but eventually if they integrate into society they will become more like us and stop having children. So it is just a temporary solution. Once again it is just resolving the symptom rather than looking at the deeper problem.
It maybe we need to look deeper at our society and ask why we value someone who works, but we treat people who stay at home to look after a family as a bit of a drop out. Why is it that a family that has two working adults with no children is seen as a success and an asset to society even though our society has plenty of workers but not enough parents? In contrast the image of a person who stays at home to look after their children while the other works is generally portrayed as unintelligent? Some say raising children is expensive, and I think it certainly is. But I don't think that is what stops people. BMWs are expensive but we see plenty of them. In fact a few years ago BMW 3 Series' started out selling Ford Mondeos. People are willing to pay for expensive things if they are seen as valuable in society. My concern is that in our society family, is no longer seen as valuable, it isn't something that we invest in. Some do, but less so now than in years past. Why is it no one asks how to solve this question?
There is another issue too, the work ethic of our own people... maybe that'll be part II.
People argue for immigration because we have an ageing population and a lack of certain skills. They say that if we bring in young hard working people from outside the country, they will help prop up our economy, earn tax pounds, pay for our NHS (particularly for those in old age) and balance out the demographic problem of an ageing population. Subtly, but usually not mentioned explicitly, it is also suggested that they work for less, so they keep prices down in certain industries too. This arguement is usually made by lefty liberal types. They are often well educated and have highly paid jobs, that is jobs that aren't going to be under threat from cheap immigrant labour.
On the other hand you have the opposition, this is split into two camps:
Working class: these guys are just annoyed that 'their' jobs are being filled by immigrants and that they are will to work for less.
Non-working class: these guys are more concerned about what will happen socially if you invite large number of people who may not share your countries common values, and let them settle without the need to integrate into the local culture.
You maybe wondering which side I'm about to come down on... give a guess. Go on....
Nope. Unless you said, none of the above, I'm afraid you didn't get it. While the discussion on immigration brings up these arguements on a regular basis, the thing that I want to highlight right now, are the questions that are never actually asked in these debates. The questions that some how seem to get ignored, despite the fact that they seem to be the most important fundamental questions under pinning the whole issue.
If we have a demographic problem, where our population is ageing, surely the question that needs to be asked is... why isn't anyone having children any more? Does that not make sense? The reason why we have an ageing population is because people are not having at least two children. Why? What has our society done to destroy the value in having children? What has happened to our concept of the family and what is important in life to make it so that we as a society don't bother having one anymore? We could bring immigrants in if we wanted, but eventually if they integrate into society they will become more like us and stop having children. So it is just a temporary solution. Once again it is just resolving the symptom rather than looking at the deeper problem.
It maybe we need to look deeper at our society and ask why we value someone who works, but we treat people who stay at home to look after a family as a bit of a drop out. Why is it that a family that has two working adults with no children is seen as a success and an asset to society even though our society has plenty of workers but not enough parents? In contrast the image of a person who stays at home to look after their children while the other works is generally portrayed as unintelligent? Some say raising children is expensive, and I think it certainly is. But I don't think that is what stops people. BMWs are expensive but we see plenty of them. In fact a few years ago BMW 3 Series' started out selling Ford Mondeos. People are willing to pay for expensive things if they are seen as valuable in society. My concern is that in our society family, is no longer seen as valuable, it isn't something that we invest in. Some do, but less so now than in years past. Why is it no one asks how to solve this question?
There is another issue too, the work ethic of our own people... maybe that'll be part II.
Friday, 15 March 2013
Can economic pain be good?
Right here is the question: Can economic pain be good?
At the moment everyone in the UK is faffing around because the growth of our economy isn't shooting along at 3-5% and instead it is just bouncing around 0-1% if we're lucky.
As a consequence people seem to think that the answer is more public spending. At first I thought they were wrong, after all you don't get yourself out of debt by spending more money. Then when growth didn't pick up I thought maybe they were right. Maybe spending on infrastructure projects would be really useful.
To an extent I still believe that infrastructure projects would be useful. Right now the UK is far too London-centric. You want to work in Finance? Go to London. You want to Work in Law? Go to London. You want to work in Government? Go to London. You want to work in tech? Go to the South East (London, Cambridge and Oxford).
The consequence is these places overheat while the rest of the UK flounders. Demand for housing, education etc is far too high in the South East, meanwhile in parts of the North East you can buy a house for the same price as a family saloon. It doesn't make sense. One way to help reverse this is to improve infrastructure. So, building HS2 rail seems like a good idea.
(even if it was knocked back today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/9932958/Government-forced-back-to-drawing-board-on-high-speed-rail-compensation.html)
So to a certain level I am in favour of investment that will level the playing field, bring business out from the overheated South East and up to the neglected North of England, Scotland and North Wales. But many people seem to think that the answer to economic stagnation is just generally more public spending. Preventing cuts to public servies etc. This will, it is claimed, reduce unemployment, help keep people out of financial problems and help get the economy going once more. I'm not so sure however.
In the short term, public spending will reduce unemployment, that much is almost sure. But so what? There are a huge number of ways people deal with short term problems that just make the future worse. Essentially this usually involves treating the symptom rather than the problem. For example, if one has toothache and they just take painkillers, it may be that the symptom is dealt with, but the problem continues, until one day, when perhaps the mouth gets infected and teeth need to be removed. Or another option would be a broken leg, where isn't of getting it reset with a splint (which would be painful in the short term) one ignores it and their leg fixes itself in a deformed manner. I'm sure we could think of endless ways to illusrate the point. The same goes for our economy.
How does this illustrate our economy? Well, say we do give out lots of public contracts instead of cutting back. People will continue to have work in the short term, but the underlying issue will not have changed. What is the underlying issue? Our economy is stuck in the past.
How is our economy stuck in the past? Simple, it is facing the wrong way. Sure we have all the knowledge and technology we need, but who does it serve? Us, the UK, the EU and the US. In short our economy is largely arranged to serve the West. To show how this is the case people often quote how more trade is conducted between the UK and Ireland, a country with only 4,600,000 people than India, a country with over a billion people living there ( around 1,200,000,000). That is right, we trade more with the tiny republic of Ireland than with a country that comprises over a 1/6 of the world's entire population. Now obviously part of that could be explained by our proximity to Ireland, but distance doesn't stop China from trading huge amounts of goods with the US and the EU. The truth is our economy is still concerned with the question that mattered in the last few decades; 'what can we sell to rich westerners?'. The answer to that question was mainly 'cheaply manufactured products made in China'. And as a result the wealth of the so called BRIC nations has increased hugely (BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India, China). As a result of their increase in wealth and industry, we're no longer in position to pay ourselves large salleries in the form of public service jobs, because all our money is very quickly being sapped out of our country and spread to the four courners of the globe. Previously we could just keep borrowing, but that option is running out fast as money is being better invested elsewhere around the world. We as a nation need to stop huddling with the other western nations, turn around and embrace the brave new world around us. A world where is isn't all about 'us' any more.
This simply won't happen if we keep on borrowing and providing public service work. If we keep borrowing to provide work, our economy will continue to be an 'us' focused economy, we'll still be busy trying to pretend we don't have to go out and work for our standard of living, pretending we can borrow to keep ourselves in the manner to which we've become accoustom, all the while our economic position would grow precarious, and the government would be less and less likely to be able to pay its debts. In addition other economies would steal a march on us, being quicker and more ready to adapt to the new state of affairs. Once that happens it is much harder for us to play catch up....
Of course we don't need to have this happen, we could just start the change now, we could just stop looking for more debt, and start looking for what we can do to serve others in the world.... and pay our way in it.
At the moment everyone in the UK is faffing around because the growth of our economy isn't shooting along at 3-5% and instead it is just bouncing around 0-1% if we're lucky.
As a consequence people seem to think that the answer is more public spending. At first I thought they were wrong, after all you don't get yourself out of debt by spending more money. Then when growth didn't pick up I thought maybe they were right. Maybe spending on infrastructure projects would be really useful.
To an extent I still believe that infrastructure projects would be useful. Right now the UK is far too London-centric. You want to work in Finance? Go to London. You want to Work in Law? Go to London. You want to work in Government? Go to London. You want to work in tech? Go to the South East (London, Cambridge and Oxford).
The consequence is these places overheat while the rest of the UK flounders. Demand for housing, education etc is far too high in the South East, meanwhile in parts of the North East you can buy a house for the same price as a family saloon. It doesn't make sense. One way to help reverse this is to improve infrastructure. So, building HS2 rail seems like a good idea.
(even if it was knocked back today: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/9932958/Government-forced-back-to-drawing-board-on-high-speed-rail-compensation.html)
So to a certain level I am in favour of investment that will level the playing field, bring business out from the overheated South East and up to the neglected North of England, Scotland and North Wales. But many people seem to think that the answer to economic stagnation is just generally more public spending. Preventing cuts to public servies etc. This will, it is claimed, reduce unemployment, help keep people out of financial problems and help get the economy going once more. I'm not so sure however.
In the short term, public spending will reduce unemployment, that much is almost sure. But so what? There are a huge number of ways people deal with short term problems that just make the future worse. Essentially this usually involves treating the symptom rather than the problem. For example, if one has toothache and they just take painkillers, it may be that the symptom is dealt with, but the problem continues, until one day, when perhaps the mouth gets infected and teeth need to be removed. Or another option would be a broken leg, where isn't of getting it reset with a splint (which would be painful in the short term) one ignores it and their leg fixes itself in a deformed manner. I'm sure we could think of endless ways to illusrate the point. The same goes for our economy.
How does this illustrate our economy? Well, say we do give out lots of public contracts instead of cutting back. People will continue to have work in the short term, but the underlying issue will not have changed. What is the underlying issue? Our economy is stuck in the past.
How is our economy stuck in the past? Simple, it is facing the wrong way. Sure we have all the knowledge and technology we need, but who does it serve? Us, the UK, the EU and the US. In short our economy is largely arranged to serve the West. To show how this is the case people often quote how more trade is conducted between the UK and Ireland, a country with only 4,600,000 people than India, a country with over a billion people living there ( around 1,200,000,000). That is right, we trade more with the tiny republic of Ireland than with a country that comprises over a 1/6 of the world's entire population. Now obviously part of that could be explained by our proximity to Ireland, but distance doesn't stop China from trading huge amounts of goods with the US and the EU. The truth is our economy is still concerned with the question that mattered in the last few decades; 'what can we sell to rich westerners?'. The answer to that question was mainly 'cheaply manufactured products made in China'. And as a result the wealth of the so called BRIC nations has increased hugely (BRIC: Brazil, Russia, India, China). As a result of their increase in wealth and industry, we're no longer in position to pay ourselves large salleries in the form of public service jobs, because all our money is very quickly being sapped out of our country and spread to the four courners of the globe. Previously we could just keep borrowing, but that option is running out fast as money is being better invested elsewhere around the world. We as a nation need to stop huddling with the other western nations, turn around and embrace the brave new world around us. A world where is isn't all about 'us' any more.
This simply won't happen if we keep on borrowing and providing public service work. If we keep borrowing to provide work, our economy will continue to be an 'us' focused economy, we'll still be busy trying to pretend we don't have to go out and work for our standard of living, pretending we can borrow to keep ourselves in the manner to which we've become accoustom, all the while our economic position would grow precarious, and the government would be less and less likely to be able to pay its debts. In addition other economies would steal a march on us, being quicker and more ready to adapt to the new state of affairs. Once that happens it is much harder for us to play catch up....
Of course we don't need to have this happen, we could just start the change now, we could just stop looking for more debt, and start looking for what we can do to serve others in the world.... and pay our way in it.
Friday, 14 December 2012
Logic and morality vs 'don't be absurd'
*** forewarning, this is pretty gross***
'Don't be absurd, that would never happen'
There is an arguement by the American religious right, that if you allow gay marriage, the next step will be polygamy, beastiality and goodness knows what else. This is based on the idea that if you're not allowed to choose what marriage is set against a predefined standard, then the only standard you have is whatever people want it to be. If there is no reason why marriage should be between and man and a woman, then why should is be between a couple and not two men and a woman, or three women and a man? Does it even need to be a lifetime commitment? If there is no reason why it should be between a man and a woman why does it have to be between two humans? After all, if you're a bigot for saying it cannot be between two men, because you think that is wrong, does that mean that you're a bigot if you think that it cannot be between three women and a man, because you think that is wrong. Essentially if popular opinion changes, you have no arguement against changing marriage with it. Regardless of what you think of gay marriage it is an interesting arguement.
I can see the logic in the argument but if I'm honest I would have thought any such societal changes would take a very long time. Far longer than my lifetime for example. I never thought I'd see someone arguing for marriage between animals and humans in my life. Then I read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950
Amazingly there is someone in Germany who is happy to represent an organisation that thinks of animals as... well let me just quote him:
"We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don't force them to do anything. Animals are much easier to understand than women,"
Yep, there is an organisation that is arguing the animals make better partners than women. Take a minute to finish throwing up. But the sad thing is, that this is how a process starts. I have codified the way social values change as follows:
-practice A is seen as disgusting
-practice A has someone who is willing to go on record to say it is good, almost everyone is repulsed
-practice A has someone who is willing to go on record the next time it is discussed, but this time there is less -shock and horror, more just disgust
-practice A becomes old news, society recognises that there are people who think it is good, even though -they strongly disagree, it is quite disgusting
-people begin being open about supporting practice A, and the people who talk to them find that 'they are just normal people', because of course, if you can hold a conversation with someone and they can be polite, whatever they do in their spare time can't be that bad can it? (because of course all people who carry out bad practices walk around with horns on their head and a spiked tail)
-people decide that since they are 'just normal people' it is just prejudice and misunderstanding that causes people to think the person is disgusting (mixing up whether a person or their practice is bad)
-those who are against practice A are bad, because they are narrow minded and prejudice
In just 9 easy steps a practice has gone from being seen as disgusting, to those who oppose it being seen as awful. I thought the process would take around 80 years, but it appears that it can probably be done in 30. What does this say about the future? I don't know, but I can't help but feel sorry the Labradors of 2042....
'Don't be absurd, that would never happen'
There is an arguement by the American religious right, that if you allow gay marriage, the next step will be polygamy, beastiality and goodness knows what else. This is based on the idea that if you're not allowed to choose what marriage is set against a predefined standard, then the only standard you have is whatever people want it to be. If there is no reason why marriage should be between and man and a woman, then why should is be between a couple and not two men and a woman, or three women and a man? Does it even need to be a lifetime commitment? If there is no reason why it should be between a man and a woman why does it have to be between two humans? After all, if you're a bigot for saying it cannot be between two men, because you think that is wrong, does that mean that you're a bigot if you think that it cannot be between three women and a man, because you think that is wrong. Essentially if popular opinion changes, you have no arguement against changing marriage with it. Regardless of what you think of gay marriage it is an interesting arguement.
I can see the logic in the argument but if I'm honest I would have thought any such societal changes would take a very long time. Far longer than my lifetime for example. I never thought I'd see someone arguing for marriage between animals and humans in my life. Then I read this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950
Amazingly there is someone in Germany who is happy to represent an organisation that thinks of animals as... well let me just quote him:
"We see animals as partners and not as a means of gratification. We don't force them to do anything. Animals are much easier to understand than women,"
Yep, there is an organisation that is arguing the animals make better partners than women. Take a minute to finish throwing up. But the sad thing is, that this is how a process starts. I have codified the way social values change as follows:
-practice A is seen as disgusting
-practice A has someone who is willing to go on record to say it is good, almost everyone is repulsed
-practice A has someone who is willing to go on record the next time it is discussed, but this time there is less -shock and horror, more just disgust
-practice A becomes old news, society recognises that there are people who think it is good, even though -they strongly disagree, it is quite disgusting
-people begin being open about supporting practice A, and the people who talk to them find that 'they are just normal people', because of course, if you can hold a conversation with someone and they can be polite, whatever they do in their spare time can't be that bad can it? (because of course all people who carry out bad practices walk around with horns on their head and a spiked tail)
-people decide that since they are 'just normal people' it is just prejudice and misunderstanding that causes people to think the person is disgusting (mixing up whether a person or their practice is bad)
-those who are against practice A are bad, because they are narrow minded and prejudice
In just 9 easy steps a practice has gone from being seen as disgusting, to those who oppose it being seen as awful. I thought the process would take around 80 years, but it appears that it can probably be done in 30. What does this say about the future? I don't know, but I can't help but feel sorry the Labradors of 2042....
Friday, 7 December 2012
Civilisation is broken, and a man can't fix it.
There seems to be an odd novel way of applying 'equality' in such fashion to actually disadvantage those whom you are supposedly trying to help. This seems to be what has happened in particular with reference to women in the last 40 years.
Let me put it this way as an illustation.
1. To be equal you must be treated the same. (we're not talking about positive discrimination here)
Yes? If you say yes move on to question 2.
2. Does the fact that men and women are inherently different affect your conclusion?
No? Move on to conclusion.
Conclusion
There should be no men and women's races in the Olympics because that discrimination; you are treating people differently because of their gender.
No to me, the conclusion seems absurd. I mean, it could be done, if that is what people wanted, but it is clear that actually by treating men and women the same, what you would do is disadvantage women. Whereas treating them as inherently different, actually makes things more fair.
Now if this applies with the Olympics which, lets face it has little to do with how society treats you and is based very much, simply on what someone can do, what does such a suggestion automatically become negative when it is applied in other everyday situations?
The difficulty is, I believe that by treating men and women the same, what actually happens is that women and men get entered into the same race. They get judged by one measure. That of a man. What society seems reluctant to do however, is realise that a man judged by the measure of a woman, will always fail, and a woman judged by the measure of a man will fail too. It is like having the same test to evaluate tractors and super sports cars, the fact is they are different and so using one meaure for both will actually pick the best of neither. The obvious solution is to treat tractors as tractors and sports cars as sports cars, that is, to treat them differently.
The disadvantage this provides to women in our society is subtle at first but increasingly obvious when you think about it. I have friends who, when they were in University, talked to other girls and came to the conclusion that British girls (they weren't British themselves) pretend to be 'modern women' who are happy to have casual sex, but really wanted to have a relationship, get married and settle down. It isn't a surprise. Men are happy to have more casual sexual relationships generally, so if women and men are the same, women must be expected to want the same things and behave in the same way. If they don't, then they just have to act like it, it would appear.
The biggest change appears to come from childbirth and work however. The fact that there are not 50/50 splits on boards of management is seen as something aweful. This means there must be discrimination in the work place. After all women are the same as men, therefore there should statistically be the same number of women on boards as men. What people don't really want to recognise is that actually there are at least 3 explanations for this:
1) women are incompetant
2) women are discriminated against by their male superiors
3) women have different priorities than men
Two of those are ruled out immediately because it suggests women are different to men, leaving the only answer to be that women are the subject of discrimination. Reality speaks otherwise however. The truth more than any of the other answers is really (3). The reason women don't make it to the top, is because they have other interests. Men make it to the top because they cannot give birth to children and they are happy pursue career over their work. Women often do not have the same priorities. Of course they can do, and those who do often succeed very well in their choosen pursuit, but in reality women don't just want a career they want a family. It isn't a bad thing, it is actually very good. But of course to recognise that recognises that men and women are different, and means that we judge women as women, rather than jugdge them as men.
If you think this is all imagined then you're probably out of touch. I know women who have a great deal of success in their choosen professions. Professions we would consider quite 'high flying'. On the one hand one was told by another woman that she had put her career before having children and now she regrets is and therefore if they wanted to have children they should just to it. While another person I know was told by another woman that if they went part time 'they would never be taken seriously as a [professional]'. Two successful women being told by their superiors two conflicting things. In the first case we see someone who bought into what they were told and regreted it, and another who appears to want to make sure that everyone else is judged in the same way she was. After all if the second example was someone who was happy surely they could have equally said, 'I didn't go part time and my career really benefited from it' which is informative and applies little pressure, rather than phrasing it as an obligation. It is hardly a surprise that this would happen however, if you pretend men and women are the same, you expect then to act the same, to want the same and to prioritise the same. In the first example someone bought into that and now regrets it, you can't help but wonder from the way the second phrased what they said, whether deep down, they feel the same, and so want others to have to make the same sacrifices they did. After all if someone really wants to put their career first, you don't have to scare them into doing it, they will do it by choice, because that is what they would choose left to their own devices.
Sadly, I don't think women are left to do what they want however. In a world where everyone must be equal in reality that means everyone must act like men and be judged as men. The real inequality that does exist however is that society no longer gives credit to the things women generally want to do, but are (as seen above) pursuaded not to do. Someone once asked 'what women can do that men can't... but don't tell me childbirth'. This I believe demonstrates where women really are discriminated against. We have made something that the vast majority of women would like to do, can do, and that men never can, and probably never will be able to do derisory. People who read this will think I'm being patronising to women just for bringing it up, and yet that is our very problem. We have made something that is wonderful, something that should be celebrated, something that should be given credit like holding a top job... almost worthless. Why? Because we judge women by the standard of being a man. This is the real discrimination. While we think 'anyone' can have a child (which they can't, only women can) which means it is not an acomplishment. Well lets face reality almost anyone can have a job, the difference is doing it well, and that applies the same to childrearing.
The fact that we judge women as men is already having repercussions in society. Our birth rate is below 2 children per couple. That means our society is dying out. That means that our NHS can't cope, neither can our pension system and pretty much most other social security systems, because they are all based on a health normal birth rate, which we don't have, because we tell all our women that if they don't act like men then they are wasting their lives. Left in this position the UK and actually Europe as a whole is going to potentially collapse.
We come to an ironic finally then. Our civilsation is broken, men cannot fix it. Pretty much only women can, and in order to do so what needs to happen is for women to ignore the plight for 'equality', being treated 'as men' and being told what they say they should want if 'they are to be taken seriously', and rather take claim of their differences and tell society that they will be valued for that difference and not because they can, when pressured, adopt the values of men to the sacrifice of whatever their own maybe. In short women will be equal, when we as a society (male and female) are brave enough acknowledge men and women are different.
Let me put it this way as an illustation.
1. To be equal you must be treated the same. (we're not talking about positive discrimination here)
Yes? If you say yes move on to question 2.
2. Does the fact that men and women are inherently different affect your conclusion?
No? Move on to conclusion.
Conclusion
There should be no men and women's races in the Olympics because that discrimination; you are treating people differently because of their gender.
No to me, the conclusion seems absurd. I mean, it could be done, if that is what people wanted, but it is clear that actually by treating men and women the same, what you would do is disadvantage women. Whereas treating them as inherently different, actually makes things more fair.
Now if this applies with the Olympics which, lets face it has little to do with how society treats you and is based very much, simply on what someone can do, what does such a suggestion automatically become negative when it is applied in other everyday situations?
The difficulty is, I believe that by treating men and women the same, what actually happens is that women and men get entered into the same race. They get judged by one measure. That of a man. What society seems reluctant to do however, is realise that a man judged by the measure of a woman, will always fail, and a woman judged by the measure of a man will fail too. It is like having the same test to evaluate tractors and super sports cars, the fact is they are different and so using one meaure for both will actually pick the best of neither. The obvious solution is to treat tractors as tractors and sports cars as sports cars, that is, to treat them differently.
The disadvantage this provides to women in our society is subtle at first but increasingly obvious when you think about it. I have friends who, when they were in University, talked to other girls and came to the conclusion that British girls (they weren't British themselves) pretend to be 'modern women' who are happy to have casual sex, but really wanted to have a relationship, get married and settle down. It isn't a surprise. Men are happy to have more casual sexual relationships generally, so if women and men are the same, women must be expected to want the same things and behave in the same way. If they don't, then they just have to act like it, it would appear.
The biggest change appears to come from childbirth and work however. The fact that there are not 50/50 splits on boards of management is seen as something aweful. This means there must be discrimination in the work place. After all women are the same as men, therefore there should statistically be the same number of women on boards as men. What people don't really want to recognise is that actually there are at least 3 explanations for this:
1) women are incompetant
2) women are discriminated against by their male superiors
3) women have different priorities than men
Two of those are ruled out immediately because it suggests women are different to men, leaving the only answer to be that women are the subject of discrimination. Reality speaks otherwise however. The truth more than any of the other answers is really (3). The reason women don't make it to the top, is because they have other interests. Men make it to the top because they cannot give birth to children and they are happy pursue career over their work. Women often do not have the same priorities. Of course they can do, and those who do often succeed very well in their choosen pursuit, but in reality women don't just want a career they want a family. It isn't a bad thing, it is actually very good. But of course to recognise that recognises that men and women are different, and means that we judge women as women, rather than jugdge them as men.
If you think this is all imagined then you're probably out of touch. I know women who have a great deal of success in their choosen professions. Professions we would consider quite 'high flying'. On the one hand one was told by another woman that she had put her career before having children and now she regrets is and therefore if they wanted to have children they should just to it. While another person I know was told by another woman that if they went part time 'they would never be taken seriously as a [professional]'. Two successful women being told by their superiors two conflicting things. In the first case we see someone who bought into what they were told and regreted it, and another who appears to want to make sure that everyone else is judged in the same way she was. After all if the second example was someone who was happy surely they could have equally said, 'I didn't go part time and my career really benefited from it' which is informative and applies little pressure, rather than phrasing it as an obligation. It is hardly a surprise that this would happen however, if you pretend men and women are the same, you expect then to act the same, to want the same and to prioritise the same. In the first example someone bought into that and now regrets it, you can't help but wonder from the way the second phrased what they said, whether deep down, they feel the same, and so want others to have to make the same sacrifices they did. After all if someone really wants to put their career first, you don't have to scare them into doing it, they will do it by choice, because that is what they would choose left to their own devices.
Sadly, I don't think women are left to do what they want however. In a world where everyone must be equal in reality that means everyone must act like men and be judged as men. The real inequality that does exist however is that society no longer gives credit to the things women generally want to do, but are (as seen above) pursuaded not to do. Someone once asked 'what women can do that men can't... but don't tell me childbirth'. This I believe demonstrates where women really are discriminated against. We have made something that the vast majority of women would like to do, can do, and that men never can, and probably never will be able to do derisory. People who read this will think I'm being patronising to women just for bringing it up, and yet that is our very problem. We have made something that is wonderful, something that should be celebrated, something that should be given credit like holding a top job... almost worthless. Why? Because we judge women by the standard of being a man. This is the real discrimination. While we think 'anyone' can have a child (which they can't, only women can) which means it is not an acomplishment. Well lets face reality almost anyone can have a job, the difference is doing it well, and that applies the same to childrearing.
The fact that we judge women as men is already having repercussions in society. Our birth rate is below 2 children per couple. That means our society is dying out. That means that our NHS can't cope, neither can our pension system and pretty much most other social security systems, because they are all based on a health normal birth rate, which we don't have, because we tell all our women that if they don't act like men then they are wasting their lives. Left in this position the UK and actually Europe as a whole is going to potentially collapse.
We come to an ironic finally then. Our civilsation is broken, men cannot fix it. Pretty much only women can, and in order to do so what needs to happen is for women to ignore the plight for 'equality', being treated 'as men' and being told what they say they should want if 'they are to be taken seriously', and rather take claim of their differences and tell society that they will be valued for that difference and not because they can, when pressured, adopt the values of men to the sacrifice of whatever their own maybe. In short women will be equal, when we as a society (male and female) are brave enough acknowledge men and women are different.
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
Rowan Williams should star in a Sit-Com
It is a rather sad day for the Church of England when its Archbishop doesn't actually understand the religion he is supposedly leading. In fact the lack of understanding would actually be very amusing, almost sit-com like if it was not for the fact that it is a real life official Church of a developed nation.
Sky reports that he has said:
"We have, to put it very bluntly, a lot of explaining to do,"
"Whatever the motivation for voting yesterday (Tuesday), whatever the theological principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society.
"Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society. We have some explaining to do, we have as a result of yesterday undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility in our society."
(http://news.sky.com/story/1014291/archbishop-church-lost-credibility-over-vote )
I don't think that it is particularly unfaithful to the sentiments of what he said to paraphrase as follows:
1. "You've made a serious mistake!"
2. "You've voted on the basis of Christian principle that people unfamilar with the Bible don't understand."
3. "Worse than that, you're deliberately not following the trends and priorities of people outside of the church"
4. "As a result people outside the church don't think the church is doing things right"
A few observations...
People who care about Christianity would know about the Bible, if they don't know about the Bible, they probably don't care what goes on in church. Even if they do know about the Bible and care about what happens in church, they are inevitably going to be unconvinced by the way the church goers manage their life, after all if they saw value in it, they would be in the church not outside of it.
Those who are in the church, ie the ones that actually care what the Church/the Bible has to say, voted in the manner they did. They are also the ones most likely to understand the reason behind the decision.
'The church doesn't follow the values of wider society'. Well of course not. This is a most obvious statement of fact. The Church is completely counter cultural. It always has been. If socity says "it is a dog eat dog world" the church says 'love your neighbour'. If the world says 'nice guys finish last' the church says 'the meek shall inherit the earth'. If the world says 'don't get mad get even' the church says 'forgive us as we forgive others'. Most of the concepts of the church run completely contrary to wider society in general. Which is presumably why the Bible says "be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (KJV).
It is with considerable shock that a Bishop would chastise the church of England for not acting like society. After all if the church acted like society what would the point of the church be? You don't need an organisation to show people to act the way they do anyway. The idea of the church is to attract people, not by their similarity, but rather by their contrast. To show that seeking revenge, being constantly drunk, taking drugs, cheating on your partner, having an unstable marriage, or being constantly self-seeking isn't the best way to go one doesn't do so oneself. If one does, what one will demonstrate is that this is the norm. Rather by avoiding those things one demonstrates that there is a different alternative way of doing things that is better in some way. To put it another way, if you want people to by Honda instead of Ford, you don't make a replica of the Ford (they already have one) you make something which is in someway better.
Society as a whole doesn't understand the reason why women aren't allowed to lead in a church. That is true. Society as a whole also doesn't understand how humbling yourself can mean you are exalted, how putting others first you can excel or how loving your enemy can make you happier and improve both your situations. It also doesn't understand how women and men can only be truely free and equal when they are accepted as of equal value, but still different, rather than pretending we're exactly the same, and hindering both. Society will never understand either... until they SEE it. And that is the very purpose for which the church is there.
Sky reports that he has said:
"We have, to put it very bluntly, a lot of explaining to do,"
"Whatever the motivation for voting yesterday (Tuesday), whatever the theological principle on which people acted and spoke, the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society.
"Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society. We have some explaining to do, we have as a result of yesterday undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility in our society."
(http://news.sky.com/story/1014291/archbishop-church-lost-credibility-over-vote )
I don't think that it is particularly unfaithful to the sentiments of what he said to paraphrase as follows:
1. "You've made a serious mistake!"
2. "You've voted on the basis of Christian principle that people unfamilar with the Bible don't understand."
3. "Worse than that, you're deliberately not following the trends and priorities of people outside of the church"
4. "As a result people outside the church don't think the church is doing things right"
A few observations...
People who care about Christianity would know about the Bible, if they don't know about the Bible, they probably don't care what goes on in church. Even if they do know about the Bible and care about what happens in church, they are inevitably going to be unconvinced by the way the church goers manage their life, after all if they saw value in it, they would be in the church not outside of it.
Those who are in the church, ie the ones that actually care what the Church/the Bible has to say, voted in the manner they did. They are also the ones most likely to understand the reason behind the decision.
'The church doesn't follow the values of wider society'. Well of course not. This is a most obvious statement of fact. The Church is completely counter cultural. It always has been. If socity says "it is a dog eat dog world" the church says 'love your neighbour'. If the world says 'nice guys finish last' the church says 'the meek shall inherit the earth'. If the world says 'don't get mad get even' the church says 'forgive us as we forgive others'. Most of the concepts of the church run completely contrary to wider society in general. Which is presumably why the Bible says "be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God." (KJV).
It is with considerable shock that a Bishop would chastise the church of England for not acting like society. After all if the church acted like society what would the point of the church be? You don't need an organisation to show people to act the way they do anyway. The idea of the church is to attract people, not by their similarity, but rather by their contrast. To show that seeking revenge, being constantly drunk, taking drugs, cheating on your partner, having an unstable marriage, or being constantly self-seeking isn't the best way to go one doesn't do so oneself. If one does, what one will demonstrate is that this is the norm. Rather by avoiding those things one demonstrates that there is a different alternative way of doing things that is better in some way. To put it another way, if you want people to by Honda instead of Ford, you don't make a replica of the Ford (they already have one) you make something which is in someway better.
Society as a whole doesn't understand the reason why women aren't allowed to lead in a church. That is true. Society as a whole also doesn't understand how humbling yourself can mean you are exalted, how putting others first you can excel or how loving your enemy can make you happier and improve both your situations. It also doesn't understand how women and men can only be truely free and equal when they are accepted as of equal value, but still different, rather than pretending we're exactly the same, and hindering both. Society will never understand either... until they SEE it. And that is the very purpose for which the church is there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
