So, my current employer and his family all seem to be of the same religious persuasion. This has largely had no affect on me as I work- there's been too much happening (that's been negative) to be praising Jesus every fifteen minutes. However, every once in a while some of the discussion of religion slips through the cracks. In most cases, it's innocuous enough- a reference to God here, a blessing there. On Friday, however, my boss's wife was showing me pictures from a mildly famous local photographer she was going on a trip with. These were gorgeous prints of nature in the thick of it. My viewing pleasure was interrupted with a challenge that my mind didn't want to back down from:
"And this all started with the big bang." I wasn't sure if it was sardonic or not until it was followed immediately with, "No sir, it's just too perfect. It had to have been created by God."
I opted not to get into this discussion in person for fear of alienating someone partially responsible for my income. However, I have thoughts on the subject of perfection that I need an outlet on, so here we go.
Perfection, an entirely too subjective term, is being used here from an emotional perspective. Nature is aesthetically perfect in this case. This, of course, ignores all elements of nature that are not aesthetically pleasing, like perhaps some of the uglier plants that grow here, or some of our hideous creatures. With that in mind, it's not likely that the earth was created with the express intention of being aesthetically pleasing. Rather, that seems to be a pleasant side effect (it's at this point that we could even get into a long discussion about how humans' brains may have developed to find common elements of nature aesthetically pleasing, rather than nature growing to become aesthetically pleasing). So, if nature's not flawless in its beauty, what about its function?
That seems doomed to failure as well. Perfect functionality would mean a completely self-sustaining model that would likely use as few differing elements as possible in order to maintain homogeneity and, therefore, predictability. The more different species you have, the harder it is to predict the course of nature. Moreover, the more everything hates everything else. Take a look at humans- we couldn't last with a few different skin colors without trying to kill each other. Ants that share most characteristics have their loyalties in their colony- some will out and out murder other colonies/species for getting in their way.
Further, the existence of massive ice ages seems to suggest that nature is not interested in maintaining a strict balance at all times. Perfect functionality doesn't appear likely.
Of course, all this talk is on terms I would not choose in an ideal setting. We've been assuming that the earth was indeed created as it is- an idea I do not find particularly believable. Considering that we can prove the existence of evolution through simple observation and testing (introducing a colony of flies to a single colored food source and their children start to turn that color over time, for example), evolution would appear to be a virtual certitude. With that in mind, plant and animal variation is completely explained.
More to my point though, I think this is exactly why it's so beautiful. Plants and animals evolved in the specific directions they did purely by happenstance that worked well. We have the enormous plethora of plants and animals that we do because we got lucky. This variation allows for constant exploration and discovery, as well as the promise for continually new species to come into existence- it's so much more interesting than a self-sufficient model of consistency. I find it so much more perfect and enjoyable because it just sort of happened, rather than being created.
We would get bored if the world wasn't constantly changing.
But, consistency gives comfort. Change brings conflict and fear. Belief in a consistent, unchanging, perfect world gives people the belief that they don't have a responsibility to protect and savor what we have.
This shouldn't win out over intrigue and wonder- it really shouldn't, but the reaction is understandable...
Additionally, before I wrap up, there's a local Lexington church/business (I really don't know which) that has a fantastically catchy phrase in bold letters on their car and place of businship (business worship?)
"What if it's True?"
This is a misused attempt at Paschal's wager, which is a philosophical attempt at proving why believing in God is smart, regardless of your faith. If there's no God and you do believe, nothing happens. If there is a God and you do believe, you win. If there's no God and you don't believe, nothing happens. If there's a God and you don't believe, you "lose."
Seems airtight on the outside. Believing in God is, at worst, not bad, and at best, gets you into heaven.
However, both of these approaches ignore a few incredibly critical details about religion (and in particular, Christianity).
1. Believing in God because it's a statistically wise investment is the exact opposite of "faith." Meaning you've chosen God for selfish reasons and you may not actually have faith, an element often required (depending on your denomination) in order to ascend.
2. The existence of the possibility for something to be true isn't evidence or a good reason to actually believe in that thing. What if it's the case that all water in America is laced with mind control drugs? Are you going to suddenly stop drinking water just because the possibility exists?
3. (And this one's the big one) Other religions are completely ignored in this argument. So what if Christianity's true? It seems to have an equal or lesser chance of being true as compared to every older religion on the planet- and there are a lot of them. Many times, these religions suggest that you spend life in eternal torment for believing in the wrong God. This makes Paschal's wager completely useless, since it adds a strict third element that's very bad to the equation. Because non-religious people aren't holding any foreign Gods above the "real" God, it's actually possible that being non-religious is the statistically smarter choice here.
(This whole rant wasn't related, I really just wanted to be angry after seeing that company/church car)
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Serenity
There’s a serene moment in your pathology when you decide
(for a third time) that you do not want to be alive. Not necessarily that you
want to cause yourself harm. For many of us, that is not an easy task- I’m
talking about that feeling where, at best, you want simply to not exist. At
worst, you want something to unexpectedly end your life for you.
This moment is a catalyst. It’s the moment where everything
in your life loses vibrancy. Where everything becomes its most hopeless.
This experience is made undeniably more powerful and
destructive when your pathology has convinced you not to seek help from others.
You’ve been convinced that you’ll be seen as “whining.” You’ve done this one
too many times, so you’re sure everyone’s sick of it and you. But some small
part of you obviously wants to keep going. Some part of you wants help and wants to get those
feelings out there, because here you are, describing your turmoil in a blog
post that you don’t intend to show anyone- but you know a few people will see
anyway. On some level, you want someone to rescue you, but you don’t know who
or how.
You’ve convinced yourself that no one cares anymore- not
even you. So, you have all these friends. You have a therapist, a loving
family. And somewhere along the lines, all of that has lost its meaning because
you’ve convinced yourself that you’re broken. Damaged goods. When it happens
once, it might just be a one-off problem. Twice is a cause for concern, but
three times signifies a problem that is consistent and not going away. At that
point, the inefficacy of prior methods starts to weigh on you. The crushing
reality that this may last forever settles in. And you decide you just don’t
have it in you to fight against it for the rest of your life. So, you want out.
There’s a serene moment in your pathology when every single
facet of your life seems completely bogged with stress. Where even the best
aspects of your life are fraught with troubles. Where all these stressors
coalesce into a single atomic stress bomb that shatters what hope you have
left- shatters your zest for life. Where everything looks significantly more
mauve than it once did.
The irony with this statement is that the phenomenon doesn’t
feel like a bomb- in fact, it feels like a dud. A spark that just fizzles. An
immense event was supposed to happen, but instead, the electric air just
stagnates before sinking back into the earth. Everything just appears to simply
stop. Something was supposed to
happen. Your entire world was building up and building up. You spent twenty
years training and preparing for this thing called “life.” When you get there,
there’s this huge heavy feeling in the air- like a deep breath you’ve been
holding for just the right amount of time. But then… nothing. It was a sham. A
trick- a charade- a con. You weren’t being prepared for your life, you were
being prepared for a life someone else wanted
you to have. And not someone who has your interests in mind.
You hold onto the breath for a few more seconds. Just a
little too long. Hoping that something… happens.
Still nothing. Holding out is beginning to hurt, so you let go. Still nothing.
You’re light-headed and faced with the cruel reality that life is nothing more
than a joke without a punch-line. Everyone around you drifts to settle in to
their life that appears so mediocre to you. You wonder, “How can they possibly
be content?” Is there a secret? Are there simple pleasures that you’re
incapable of enjoying? Or are they using an escape, hiding from their own
feelings?
There’s a serene moment in your pathology when you realize
that you’re going through the motions in the blind and desperate hope that some
meaning comes to you so that you can prove your life hasn’t been a waste. But
it doesn’t come. You keep going and your despair rises. Every time a friend
leaves you. Every time your job looks like it might not hold out. Every fight
you have with your girlfriend. Every time someone legitimately thinks you’re a
bad person.
There’s a serene moment in your pathology when you, a
pacifist, are actively considering the purchase of a firearm. Not for any
reason other than to keep it under your pillow at night for the day that you
finally give up. For the time where you decide that you have the courage to
make a meaningful stand for yourself, since nothing else seems to be working to
those ends. For when you’re tired and you want to go to sleep without having to
worry about what happens when you wake up.
There’s a serene moment in your pathology…
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Feminism and Hypocrisy
I don't intend for this to be directed at feminism as a lesson to be learned, but recent experiences in this matter have largely been within the realm of feminism. As such, it is through that lens that I will approach this topic.
To break it down from a general perspective- I find that there's something philosophically wrong with an ideological movement of any kind that does not adhere to its own teachings. It's inconsistent and suggests that the movement has ulterior motives- playing both sides of the fence. Unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices that their ideology demands.
Sometimes, this is for a pragmatic purpose, which is understandable (for obviously practical reasons), but still unacceptable from a strictly theoretical perspective.
To touch this issue down into reality, we'll start with the ideological disagreement between deontology and utilitarianism.
Deontology suggests that there are absolutes- things that one must always or never do.
Utilitarianism suggests that there are not absolutes- that there are gray areas between each extreme. Every act can be justified given the appropriate circumstances in which a greater good can come from a "bad" act.
My problem would be something like this-
If a utilitarian argued for moral gray areas except ones that were a detriment to them personally. For example, an asthmatic utilitarian "You're never allowed to smoke. It always does more harm than good." As a statement, it obviously cannot be proven, but it neglects a basic tenet of utilitarianism- that there's always a theoretical situation in which it is better to do the otherwise obviously "bad" thing.
It is intellectually dishonest to hold others to a standard that you refuse to hold yourself to. It lends a total lack of credibility to the message you're trying to send.
My philosophy example is not solid, and I'm actually not particularly satisfied with it, but I came up with it on the fly, so it'll have to do...
To get to the real meat of what I'm saying- tying this to feminism- I've had a lot of discussions lately with self-described feminists (of which I still consider myself one) who, push comes to shove, argue that sexism is acceptable against men if it serves the purpose of protecting women from harm. This results from a very real danger that women face, often every day, of active disrespect from strangers. People who treat them as property, only out for their pleasure. People who leer, threaten, gesture, and touch- inappropriately and without consent.
It is an... understandable, if unfortunate, conclusion one can reach being surrounded by this environment, that all men are dangerous assholes.
This generalizing conclusion, however, creates a very Us-Vs.-Them nature of the gender "binary." The result of that is increased sexism. To be sure, it is practical. If you treat every male as a threat, you're far less likely to be harmed by a male in your life. It has a use.
If I treat every flower as one with thorns, I will never be stabbed by them.
If I treat every potential as the worst outcome, I will be significantly more prepared against those worst outcomes. But this is also a particularly fearful approach to life- one that generalizes all things outside my knowledge as "bad."
It is absolutely my (and anyone else's) prerogative to live like this.
However, it is not my prerogative to live like this while espousing a philosophy in which generalizations are the heart of a societal problem which is above me, personally.
If sexism and the gender binary are the root cause of so many of society's problems- problems which are far more than me or you or anyone else- then I cannot in good conscience do anything the enforces sexism and the gender binary just because it furthers my agenda.
To clarify- this is active sexism. Active generalizations that we're talking about. Being simply cautious is not an active judgment of people. Refusing to put up with the active disrespect of individuals is not generalizing.
We do not have to choose between safety and consistency. But we do have to choose between consistency and taking the cognitive easy way out. Generalizations are our way of categorizing an entire group based on a limited data set such that we can (hopefully) more easily predict behaviors and outcomes without experiencing them first. While these may be practical, they're intellectually problematic and the antithesis to critical thinking and the perception that all people should be safe from preconceived judgments.
If you cannot hold yourself to the standards by which you wish to hold others, then you do not deserve to hold anyone to those standards.
To break it down from a general perspective- I find that there's something philosophically wrong with an ideological movement of any kind that does not adhere to its own teachings. It's inconsistent and suggests that the movement has ulterior motives- playing both sides of the fence. Unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices that their ideology demands.
Sometimes, this is for a pragmatic purpose, which is understandable (for obviously practical reasons), but still unacceptable from a strictly theoretical perspective.
To touch this issue down into reality, we'll start with the ideological disagreement between deontology and utilitarianism.
Deontology suggests that there are absolutes- things that one must always or never do.
Utilitarianism suggests that there are not absolutes- that there are gray areas between each extreme. Every act can be justified given the appropriate circumstances in which a greater good can come from a "bad" act.
My problem would be something like this-
If a utilitarian argued for moral gray areas except ones that were a detriment to them personally. For example, an asthmatic utilitarian "You're never allowed to smoke. It always does more harm than good." As a statement, it obviously cannot be proven, but it neglects a basic tenet of utilitarianism- that there's always a theoretical situation in which it is better to do the otherwise obviously "bad" thing.
It is intellectually dishonest to hold others to a standard that you refuse to hold yourself to. It lends a total lack of credibility to the message you're trying to send.
My philosophy example is not solid, and I'm actually not particularly satisfied with it, but I came up with it on the fly, so it'll have to do...
To get to the real meat of what I'm saying- tying this to feminism- I've had a lot of discussions lately with self-described feminists (of which I still consider myself one) who, push comes to shove, argue that sexism is acceptable against men if it serves the purpose of protecting women from harm. This results from a very real danger that women face, often every day, of active disrespect from strangers. People who treat them as property, only out for their pleasure. People who leer, threaten, gesture, and touch- inappropriately and without consent.
It is an... understandable, if unfortunate, conclusion one can reach being surrounded by this environment, that all men are dangerous assholes.
This generalizing conclusion, however, creates a very Us-Vs.-Them nature of the gender "binary." The result of that is increased sexism. To be sure, it is practical. If you treat every male as a threat, you're far less likely to be harmed by a male in your life. It has a use.
If I treat every flower as one with thorns, I will never be stabbed by them.
If I treat every potential as the worst outcome, I will be significantly more prepared against those worst outcomes. But this is also a particularly fearful approach to life- one that generalizes all things outside my knowledge as "bad."
It is absolutely my (and anyone else's) prerogative to live like this.
However, it is not my prerogative to live like this while espousing a philosophy in which generalizations are the heart of a societal problem which is above me, personally.
If sexism and the gender binary are the root cause of so many of society's problems- problems which are far more than me or you or anyone else- then I cannot in good conscience do anything the enforces sexism and the gender binary just because it furthers my agenda.
To clarify- this is active sexism. Active generalizations that we're talking about. Being simply cautious is not an active judgment of people. Refusing to put up with the active disrespect of individuals is not generalizing.
We do not have to choose between safety and consistency. But we do have to choose between consistency and taking the cognitive easy way out. Generalizations are our way of categorizing an entire group based on a limited data set such that we can (hopefully) more easily predict behaviors and outcomes without experiencing them first. While these may be practical, they're intellectually problematic and the antithesis to critical thinking and the perception that all people should be safe from preconceived judgments.
If you cannot hold yourself to the standards by which you wish to hold others, then you do not deserve to hold anyone to those standards.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Treating Someone as a Threat- Why Perceptions can be Problematic
***Trigger Warning***
Alright, it's about time I address the enormous elephant in the room. Spurred on by unpleasant discourse with a friend and a less cordial creature, this post is going to be about the difficult world of perceiving someone as a threat when they have not actively threatened you.
Let me get some preliminary notes out of the way-
1. This isn't just about feminism and the default position some women keep that men are dangerous. This is about race. This is about religion. This is about discrimination in general.
2. I consider myself a "feminist," though I would like the term to shift to "egalitarian" within the decade.
3. Everyone is entitled to feel discomfort in any situation. Everyone is entitled to act as safely as they would like.
4. (This is important) Everyone is entitled to define "threatening" in any way they see fit. It is simply a depressing fact that what you perceive as threatening may not be what others perceive as threatening. Therefore, your reaction to something you perceive as threatening (whether or not it is intended as such) may cause an equal and opposite reaction in whomever it is you're dealing with.
5. My girlfriend and I recently had a discussion in which she remarked how discomforting it is to her when people compare race and gender issues, since they have significant distinctions between them. Unfortunately, that is exactly what I'm about to do for the context of this problem (Sorry, dear!).
I'd like to start off with some statistics, if I may~
Your odds of being robbed in the US in any given year are roughly 1/420. This is not consistent across gender, however.
Your odds of being robbed in the US in any given year as a male are roughly 1/300. If you're a female, it's almost 1/700. For males, that's about a 1/4 chance in their lives.
Odds almost completely consistently become less concerning as you get older. In your 20s-30s, you're in the most likely group for robbery.
However, let's just stick with the gender difference for now. As a male, you have something of a 1/3-1/4 chance of being robbed at some point in your life.
As a female, it's about doubled.
The odds that this person robbing you will be a stranger? About 70%.
http://www.bookofodds.com/content/view/full/678590
But what about the person robbing you? It's 8 times more likely that it's a black person than any other race. However, black people are 139 times more likely to commit a robbery than white people.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime#United_States
Now, I'd like us to step back and examine rape statistics.
First, however, I will qualify this by saying that my intention is NOT to compare these two crimes in terms of severity. I do not believe that it is fair, and I do believe that rape is a significantly more traumatizing crime.
That said, an American woman has about a 1/4 or 1/5 chance of being raped in her lifetime. The lower down the socio-economic ladder and the less white you are, the more likely you are to be a victim of sexual assault. Over half the reported rapes (It is crucial to note that this only covers reported rapes) are against women under the age of 18.
Over 60% of all rapes are perpetrated by a lover or someone well-known by the victim. Rape by a stranger constitutes just 4% of all rapes, while rape by acquaintance covers about 20%.
http://thehathorlegacy.com/rape-statistics/
The vast majority of rapes occur in someone's home. Typically, the victim's house or the perpetrator's house (both, if married).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States
I'd like to parse some of this data, since it's not something we often think too much about.
You have a 1% chance of being raped by a stranger in your lifetime.
This means, on a year-to-year basis, it's going to be a bell curve that averages at .0125% chance of being raped by a stranger in any given year.
Where am I going with this? It's all very horrible and all, but what's the point I'm getting at here?
Well, if a stranger comes up to and means you ill will, there's almost a 20:1 ratio that he or she's just interested in your money or your watch. There's also an incredibly good chance that he or she isn't white.
So what do you do when you get into an elevator and a black man gets in with you alone? What if it's 4:00 AM? What if he sees you on your phone and asks, "Hey, is that the new iPhone? Do you mind if I see it?"
Put yourself in that scenario, if you would. Does it make you uncomfortable? Maybe. Again, we're all entitled to our discomforts. But doesn't it also feel just a bit racist? Somewhere deep down, are you scolding yourself for being uncomfortable by this polite man who hasn't actually threatened you?
The odds are sure higher that it's a situation that would end poorly for you than if it was a white woman who had walked into that elevator.
But does the existence of better odds make it more acceptable to assume something about this man? You might say yes, or you might say no. It's a difficult ethical question, to be sure, but I think we can all agree that assuming the man is more dangerous does nothing to help racial tensions.
What if, after the event, you posted about your encounter on Facebook and said, "black guys, don't do that."
Well, now it sounds really racist. And it doesn't just sound racist. It is racist.
You're ascribing value to the actions of everyone in a single group- in this case, a racial group, noting a negative value in an action performed by anyone in that group- but only that group.
When all you have to go on is statistical likelihood- specifically, the difference between "virtually zero," and "slightly closer to zero,"- then making a judgment claim is a bad idea.
Again- I'll stop here to remind you, I'm not telling you to trust everyone. I'm not telling you to walk across the street and to talk to the guy hanging out in that dark alley. I'm just noting that if someone approaches you, they're not likely to cause you harm in any way. It's worth reminding yourself that people aren't out to get you. Rather, it's a fraction of a percent of the entire population of the US causes problems. A fraction of a percent. To help you understand the concept more immediately, take a quarter and flip it.
Did you flip it?
Okay.
Now flip it 999 more times. Statistically, only a small handful of those flips were "criminals."
If you meet each person in your day, expecting them to be the criminal that you probably won't run into, then you're going to live a very fearful life. Not only that, but you're going to contribute to the stereotypes that give rise to racism and sexism. The inequalities in our society are caused not only by systemic occurrences, but by our very thoughts and perceptions.
Stereotype threat is the effect that allows women to do worse on science or math tests when they are reminded before taking the test that they are females. From a societal attitude that women cannot perform in math and science as well as men, it becomes a truth. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
If we see a black man in an elevator and we assume that he means to do us harm, then he will be more likely to internalize that.
I realize that this is a difficult area of discussion, particularly because there is statistical correlation between men and rape as well as black men and robbery. It is difficult to ignore statistics. Especially since, as academics, some of us are taught that statistics are the entirety of an argument. However, I remind you that the statistics we're examining are "virtually 0" and "slightly closer to/further from virtually 0."
Admittedly, there are factors that can greatly increase or decrease these statistics. However, since virtually everyone reading this post is middle class, those factors largely do not apply to us. Namely the biggest and most prevalent factor in crime - Being poor.
This post would be uncomfortably pragmatic if all three of my readers were from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. But, because we have the luxury of focusing on things other than immediate survival each and every day, I think it's important that we sit down and talk about these (and other) issues.
As discomforting and awkward as it is, by holding onto the prejudices we've been raised with, backed by statistics or not, we're perpetuating a culture of differentiation that is antithetical to the very ideals behind an egalitarian philosophy. Ideals about equality and love, togetherness and trust.
I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm merely asking you to re-examine the rhetoric we use to assess danger from unknown people. Maybe next time you feel uncomfortable around someone without having justification, try creating a history for them in your mind. A history that would be more likely for one of the 99.9% of people who aren't violent criminals. Since statistically, that person probably falls under that category.
Be cautious. Don't take any unnecessary risks, and by no means should you trust someone you don't know right away. But, there's a very large distinction between treating someone with indifference versus treating them as an active and/or potential threat.
Really though- try to treat everyone as though they're a part of that 99.9% that just wants to be happy. Because they probably are.
-
Waddles
Alright, hit me. I know this is going to be controversial for some of you.
Alright, it's about time I address the enormous elephant in the room. Spurred on by unpleasant discourse with a friend and a less cordial creature, this post is going to be about the difficult world of perceiving someone as a threat when they have not actively threatened you.
Let me get some preliminary notes out of the way-
1. This isn't just about feminism and the default position some women keep that men are dangerous. This is about race. This is about religion. This is about discrimination in general.
2. I consider myself a "feminist," though I would like the term to shift to "egalitarian" within the decade.
3. Everyone is entitled to feel discomfort in any situation. Everyone is entitled to act as safely as they would like.
4. (This is important) Everyone is entitled to define "threatening" in any way they see fit. It is simply a depressing fact that what you perceive as threatening may not be what others perceive as threatening. Therefore, your reaction to something you perceive as threatening (whether or not it is intended as such) may cause an equal and opposite reaction in whomever it is you're dealing with.
5. My girlfriend and I recently had a discussion in which she remarked how discomforting it is to her when people compare race and gender issues, since they have significant distinctions between them. Unfortunately, that is exactly what I'm about to do for the context of this problem (Sorry, dear!).
I'd like to start off with some statistics, if I may~
Your odds of being robbed in the US in any given year are roughly 1/420. This is not consistent across gender, however.
Your odds of being robbed in the US in any given year as a male are roughly 1/300. If you're a female, it's almost 1/700. For males, that's about a 1/4 chance in their lives.
Odds almost completely consistently become less concerning as you get older. In your 20s-30s, you're in the most likely group for robbery.
However, let's just stick with the gender difference for now. As a male, you have something of a 1/3-1/4 chance of being robbed at some point in your life.
As a female, it's about doubled.
The odds that this person robbing you will be a stranger? About 70%.
http://www.bookofodds.com/content/view/full/678590
But what about the person robbing you? It's 8 times more likely that it's a black person than any other race. However, black people are 139 times more likely to commit a robbery than white people.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime#United_States
Now, I'd like us to step back and examine rape statistics.
First, however, I will qualify this by saying that my intention is NOT to compare these two crimes in terms of severity. I do not believe that it is fair, and I do believe that rape is a significantly more traumatizing crime.
That said, an American woman has about a 1/4 or 1/5 chance of being raped in her lifetime. The lower down the socio-economic ladder and the less white you are, the more likely you are to be a victim of sexual assault. Over half the reported rapes (It is crucial to note that this only covers reported rapes) are against women under the age of 18.
Over 60% of all rapes are perpetrated by a lover or someone well-known by the victim. Rape by a stranger constitutes just 4% of all rapes, while rape by acquaintance covers about 20%.
http://thehathorlegacy.com/rape-statistics/
The vast majority of rapes occur in someone's home. Typically, the victim's house or the perpetrator's house (both, if married).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States
I'd like to parse some of this data, since it's not something we often think too much about.
You have a 1% chance of being raped by a stranger in your lifetime.
This means, on a year-to-year basis, it's going to be a bell curve that averages at .0125% chance of being raped by a stranger in any given year.
Where am I going with this? It's all very horrible and all, but what's the point I'm getting at here?
Well, if a stranger comes up to and means you ill will, there's almost a 20:1 ratio that he or she's just interested in your money or your watch. There's also an incredibly good chance that he or she isn't white.
So what do you do when you get into an elevator and a black man gets in with you alone? What if it's 4:00 AM? What if he sees you on your phone and asks, "Hey, is that the new iPhone? Do you mind if I see it?"
Put yourself in that scenario, if you would. Does it make you uncomfortable? Maybe. Again, we're all entitled to our discomforts. But doesn't it also feel just a bit racist? Somewhere deep down, are you scolding yourself for being uncomfortable by this polite man who hasn't actually threatened you?
The odds are sure higher that it's a situation that would end poorly for you than if it was a white woman who had walked into that elevator.
But does the existence of better odds make it more acceptable to assume something about this man? You might say yes, or you might say no. It's a difficult ethical question, to be sure, but I think we can all agree that assuming the man is more dangerous does nothing to help racial tensions.
What if, after the event, you posted about your encounter on Facebook and said, "black guys, don't do that."
Well, now it sounds really racist. And it doesn't just sound racist. It is racist.
You're ascribing value to the actions of everyone in a single group- in this case, a racial group, noting a negative value in an action performed by anyone in that group- but only that group.
When all you have to go on is statistical likelihood- specifically, the difference between "virtually zero," and "slightly closer to zero,"- then making a judgment claim is a bad idea.
Again- I'll stop here to remind you, I'm not telling you to trust everyone. I'm not telling you to walk across the street and to talk to the guy hanging out in that dark alley. I'm just noting that if someone approaches you, they're not likely to cause you harm in any way. It's worth reminding yourself that people aren't out to get you. Rather, it's a fraction of a percent of the entire population of the US causes problems. A fraction of a percent. To help you understand the concept more immediately, take a quarter and flip it.
Did you flip it?
Okay.
Now flip it 999 more times. Statistically, only a small handful of those flips were "criminals."
If you meet each person in your day, expecting them to be the criminal that you probably won't run into, then you're going to live a very fearful life. Not only that, but you're going to contribute to the stereotypes that give rise to racism and sexism. The inequalities in our society are caused not only by systemic occurrences, but by our very thoughts and perceptions.
Stereotype threat is the effect that allows women to do worse on science or math tests when they are reminded before taking the test that they are females. From a societal attitude that women cannot perform in math and science as well as men, it becomes a truth. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
If we see a black man in an elevator and we assume that he means to do us harm, then he will be more likely to internalize that.
I realize that this is a difficult area of discussion, particularly because there is statistical correlation between men and rape as well as black men and robbery. It is difficult to ignore statistics. Especially since, as academics, some of us are taught that statistics are the entirety of an argument. However, I remind you that the statistics we're examining are "virtually 0" and "slightly closer to/further from virtually 0."
Admittedly, there are factors that can greatly increase or decrease these statistics. However, since virtually everyone reading this post is middle class, those factors largely do not apply to us. Namely the biggest and most prevalent factor in crime - Being poor.
This post would be uncomfortably pragmatic if all three of my readers were from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. But, because we have the luxury of focusing on things other than immediate survival each and every day, I think it's important that we sit down and talk about these (and other) issues.
As discomforting and awkward as it is, by holding onto the prejudices we've been raised with, backed by statistics or not, we're perpetuating a culture of differentiation that is antithetical to the very ideals behind an egalitarian philosophy. Ideals about equality and love, togetherness and trust.
I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm merely asking you to re-examine the rhetoric we use to assess danger from unknown people. Maybe next time you feel uncomfortable around someone without having justification, try creating a history for them in your mind. A history that would be more likely for one of the 99.9% of people who aren't violent criminals. Since statistically, that person probably falls under that category.
Be cautious. Don't take any unnecessary risks, and by no means should you trust someone you don't know right away. But, there's a very large distinction between treating someone with indifference versus treating them as an active and/or potential threat.
Really though- try to treat everyone as though they're a part of that 99.9% that just wants to be happy. Because they probably are.
-
Waddles
Alright, hit me. I know this is going to be controversial for some of you.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
The job of the teacher
Okay, here's something I haven't discussed.
I didn't think I would have to, but people are surprising me today.
For reference, this post arises from a criticism made of two professors at Transy who were up for tenure recently. Their promotion was deferred because they weren't academically published yet.
This has sparked lots of controversy and discussion on the relative duties of professors.
That discussion has pissed me off.
Why is there anyone who thinks that a professor's first priority shouldn't be imparting knowledge to students?
What world do you live in where it's more important for a professor to be furthering their own career than furthering the education of their students who depend on their teacher to be ready, enthusiastic, and helpful in their job?
That's the exact opposite of what we need in this society.
If you're not interested in teaching students, don't teach students.
And if you want professors you hire not to focus on students first, just quit your job, walk away, and find some nice hole in middle-management to crawl into and die.
It is unacceptable to treat students as a means to an end, whether by using them for their tuition money or by having their professors spend their precious hours on something totally unrelated to the educational process. The entire purpose of having these institutions is for the growth and preparation of the next generation of academics and workers.
As a country, how about we pay people to research. Or pay them to write.
If they don't want to teach, let's pay them to use their intellect in other useful realms instead of shoe-horning them into one career that requires both, regardless of which one they're actually interested in (or good at) Lumping all academics together as teachers and writers is just... Nonsensical and antithetical to serious educational processes.
What makes it even worse is that college professors don't have to take any sort of courses in education. So long as you have mastered your own area of study, you're allowed to teach students about that area and somewhat related areas. Even if you don't know the first thing about teaching.
Even if you're an awful teacher. There are some programs which require you to take a single, several-hour crash course on education. However, I'm not familiar with any program that requires you to have actual educational training in order to be able to teach college students.
Implicitly, there's an assumption going on that college students are smart enough to pick up the material even with a teacher who's lacking in that capacity, but that's an awful approach that relies on the students to teach themselves, at which point, we might as well not have the professors in the first place.
The future of our government, economy, labor, and academic pursuits all rest on new students getting a solid educational foundation from which they can pursue careers. If we're more focused on people who already have established careers, then we're doing an enormous disservice to those students and, ultimately, the country itself.
I can't believe it's even a question that has to be asked in this day and age.
Do we expect firefighters to also solve crimes in their spare time?
Is your manager also expected to be a therapist?
Do you want your doctor to teach yoga on the side?
Or wouldn't it just be nice if all those people could pay attention to their job without having to worry about the safety of their career relying on a separate and completely unrelated job?
Wouldn't it be great if their attention wasn't split between training our future workforce and writing for academic journals?
But hey, I'm no teacher, I'm no professor, and I don't have tenure.
This is 100% from the biased perspective of a recent student who hasn't experienced education from the other side.
I might be completely off. I know I'm friends with a few teachers/professors, what do you think?
-
Wad
I didn't think I would have to, but people are surprising me today.
For reference, this post arises from a criticism made of two professors at Transy who were up for tenure recently. Their promotion was deferred because they weren't academically published yet.
This has sparked lots of controversy and discussion on the relative duties of professors.
That discussion has pissed me off.
Why is there anyone who thinks that a professor's first priority shouldn't be imparting knowledge to students?
What world do you live in where it's more important for a professor to be furthering their own career than furthering the education of their students who depend on their teacher to be ready, enthusiastic, and helpful in their job?
That's the exact opposite of what we need in this society.
If you're not interested in teaching students, don't teach students.
And if you want professors you hire not to focus on students first, just quit your job, walk away, and find some nice hole in middle-management to crawl into and die.
It is unacceptable to treat students as a means to an end, whether by using them for their tuition money or by having their professors spend their precious hours on something totally unrelated to the educational process. The entire purpose of having these institutions is for the growth and preparation of the next generation of academics and workers.
As a country, how about we pay people to research. Or pay them to write.
If they don't want to teach, let's pay them to use their intellect in other useful realms instead of shoe-horning them into one career that requires both, regardless of which one they're actually interested in (or good at) Lumping all academics together as teachers and writers is just... Nonsensical and antithetical to serious educational processes.
What makes it even worse is that college professors don't have to take any sort of courses in education. So long as you have mastered your own area of study, you're allowed to teach students about that area and somewhat related areas. Even if you don't know the first thing about teaching.
Even if you're an awful teacher. There are some programs which require you to take a single, several-hour crash course on education. However, I'm not familiar with any program that requires you to have actual educational training in order to be able to teach college students.
Implicitly, there's an assumption going on that college students are smart enough to pick up the material even with a teacher who's lacking in that capacity, but that's an awful approach that relies on the students to teach themselves, at which point, we might as well not have the professors in the first place.
The future of our government, economy, labor, and academic pursuits all rest on new students getting a solid educational foundation from which they can pursue careers. If we're more focused on people who already have established careers, then we're doing an enormous disservice to those students and, ultimately, the country itself.
I can't believe it's even a question that has to be asked in this day and age.
Do we expect firefighters to also solve crimes in their spare time?
Is your manager also expected to be a therapist?
Do you want your doctor to teach yoga on the side?
Or wouldn't it just be nice if all those people could pay attention to their job without having to worry about the safety of their career relying on a separate and completely unrelated job?
Wouldn't it be great if their attention wasn't split between training our future workforce and writing for academic journals?
But hey, I'm no teacher, I'm no professor, and I don't have tenure.
This is 100% from the biased perspective of a recent student who hasn't experienced education from the other side.
I might be completely off. I know I'm friends with a few teachers/professors, what do you think?
-
Wad
Friday, March 15, 2013
Back to Controversy
I'm feeling pretty good. I'm feeling like I have some control right now, and I think doing some writing will help.
SO, I figure I'll jump in on the topic I wanted to post about right around the time I left- pedophilia, and sexuality in general.
To anyone who's followed this blog, you know I browse reddit. A lot of times the middle class white male college educated, liberally-leaning perspective is just nice to be around.
Other times, it sucks. Big time.
The topic of pedophilia comes up every once in a while on reddit. Someone will do an AMA (interview where anyone can ask questions) about how their spouse sexually abused their child, or occasionally, you'll see someone who actually has pedophilic desires do an AMA. The pure amount of animosity and general ignorance on the topic is just upsetting.
Let's start with the obvious statements:
1. I understand that touching children is wrong. Agency to commit and consent to complicated actions like that is not something children have. They can't be held accountable to contracts, they're tried different from adults in court, they're not capable of giving consent (except under specific circumstances), and they aren't allowed to be released from parental custody unless, again, specific circumstances are met. Point is- it's wrong to try to force that responsibility of agency onto them when they're not ready, and it's equally wrong to take the agency they have away from them.
No one is arguing otherwise. That's the first step to approaching this discussion.
2. No one is excusing their behavior. When you act on your impulses, you deserve the consequences, regardless of what they are. What this discussion aims to do is explain behavior and, more particularly, desires.
So starting this discussion, you may be uncomfortable with the idea of someone sexually wanting a child. It's not a comfortable thought- but here's a little exercise:
If you're reading this, chances are, you're a friend of mine and you're probably willing to agree that homosexuality is acceptable and more importantly, natural. The desire for another person of the same sex is natural in its own right. Now, are you interested in skinny guys or Muscles McGoo? Do you like dark hair or lighter hair? Do you want him to be protective or do you want him to respect your sense of individual ability? How about the sex? Do you have a preferred position? Is there something a woman can do that just turns you on? Is there just a thought that turns you on? Do you have any fetishes? Do you like light bondage? How about toys? Do you have any roleplay fantasies?
Now let me ask you this-- Could you change those preferences or desires? Would you change them?
Your answers to these questions are subjective across each person. But the essence of it is that your preferences and desires are not something you choose. It's more likely that you stumbled into them through personal exploration, sexual or otherwise, and you started going back to them when you liked what you found.
That is the heart of a fetish or a philia. In the case of pedophilia, we're dealing with a fetish that is socially, legally, and personally unacceptable. No one will talk to you about it, you're labeled as a monster even if you've never done anything, and the worst of it is that you can't change it no matter how much you want to.
To those of you who've had sex or some sort of sexual interaction that was meaningful- how would it feel to know that you could never have the kind of sexual interaction that you wanted. Ever? Imagine up the best sexual situation you can think of. The most romantic, the most passionate, the hottest- whatever you want. Now really get into that. Own it. Want it.
Now imagine it was literally impossible to do without hurting your partner.
Imagine you could never have a consenting partner. You could never do this with someone you loved.
You can never be proud of it. You can never own it. You could go to jail for it (for some older readers, they may have faced something like this in their lifetime).
Take that feeling you have. That sinking, depressing, awful feeling and put that onto every single person with pedophilic urges.
It's a situation to be pitied, not hated. They can never experience what many of us can daily or weekly or monthly. And they don't even have the social support structure to deal with those feelings.
If you're feeling sexually frustrated, you have friends who can and will listen and empathize. Imagine not being able to say anything to anyone ever. Even if you knew someone who wouldn't judge you, imagine the social stigma about the topic- the shame you feel just thinking about it. Why would you want to bring it up? You wouldn't feel comfortable with it even IF you trusted that person not to flip out and call the police on you.
This was one more roll of the genetic dice that you happened to get lucky on.
Not something you willfully did to "be a better person."
Another thing- Have you ever been uncomfortable with something about yourself? (Preferably something you can't change, but it's somewhat relevant even if it was something you could change)
Doesn't that suck? To look at yourself in the mirror and to be unhappy? To hate yourself? To be so ashamed of who or what you are that you want to die? I'm sure a lot of us have been there.
Has someone ever tried to pressure you into changing? Has someone ever made you feel as though it was imperative to make that change? Have relationships or friendships hinged on that change? Even if you couldn't actually do it?
We have to learn to accept and cope with what we have. If we can change the things we dislike, that's part of coping- but if we can't, then we have to cope another way. You can't will away the gay. You can't pray away your "unclean" lusts. You can't trick yourself into not being who you are or attracted to what you are. You just have to cope with it.
And that coping process is a helluva lot easier if you don't have idiots sticking their nose in your face and telling you how you ought to be all day.
Just try to empathize with what someone with pedophilic urges is going through. Maybe if society was better about helping people cope, we wouldn't have so many goddamn actual pedophiles sitting around in prison after no one was around to help them through their shitty situation.
Take this post and replace the current issue with any other issue of gender or sexuality or identity, and you're pretty much set.
-
Wads
DISCLAIMER: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DO NOT TAKE THIS TO MEAN I CONDONE OR ACCEPT THE AWFUL ACTIONS TAKEN BY PEOPLE IN THIS SITUATION. I DO NOT.
SO, I figure I'll jump in on the topic I wanted to post about right around the time I left- pedophilia, and sexuality in general.
To anyone who's followed this blog, you know I browse reddit. A lot of times the middle class white male college educated, liberally-leaning perspective is just nice to be around.
Other times, it sucks. Big time.
The topic of pedophilia comes up every once in a while on reddit. Someone will do an AMA (interview where anyone can ask questions) about how their spouse sexually abused their child, or occasionally, you'll see someone who actually has pedophilic desires do an AMA. The pure amount of animosity and general ignorance on the topic is just upsetting.
Let's start with the obvious statements:
1. I understand that touching children is wrong. Agency to commit and consent to complicated actions like that is not something children have. They can't be held accountable to contracts, they're tried different from adults in court, they're not capable of giving consent (except under specific circumstances), and they aren't allowed to be released from parental custody unless, again, specific circumstances are met. Point is- it's wrong to try to force that responsibility of agency onto them when they're not ready, and it's equally wrong to take the agency they have away from them.
No one is arguing otherwise. That's the first step to approaching this discussion.
2. No one is excusing their behavior. When you act on your impulses, you deserve the consequences, regardless of what they are. What this discussion aims to do is explain behavior and, more particularly, desires.
So starting this discussion, you may be uncomfortable with the idea of someone sexually wanting a child. It's not a comfortable thought- but here's a little exercise:
If you're reading this, chances are, you're a friend of mine and you're probably willing to agree that homosexuality is acceptable and more importantly, natural. The desire for another person of the same sex is natural in its own right. Now, are you interested in skinny guys or Muscles McGoo? Do you like dark hair or lighter hair? Do you want him to be protective or do you want him to respect your sense of individual ability? How about the sex? Do you have a preferred position? Is there something a woman can do that just turns you on? Is there just a thought that turns you on? Do you have any fetishes? Do you like light bondage? How about toys? Do you have any roleplay fantasies?
Now let me ask you this-- Could you change those preferences or desires? Would you change them?
Your answers to these questions are subjective across each person. But the essence of it is that your preferences and desires are not something you choose. It's more likely that you stumbled into them through personal exploration, sexual or otherwise, and you started going back to them when you liked what you found.
That is the heart of a fetish or a philia. In the case of pedophilia, we're dealing with a fetish that is socially, legally, and personally unacceptable. No one will talk to you about it, you're labeled as a monster even if you've never done anything, and the worst of it is that you can't change it no matter how much you want to.
To those of you who've had sex or some sort of sexual interaction that was meaningful- how would it feel to know that you could never have the kind of sexual interaction that you wanted. Ever? Imagine up the best sexual situation you can think of. The most romantic, the most passionate, the hottest- whatever you want. Now really get into that. Own it. Want it.
Now imagine it was literally impossible to do without hurting your partner.
Imagine you could never have a consenting partner. You could never do this with someone you loved.
You can never be proud of it. You can never own it. You could go to jail for it (for some older readers, they may have faced something like this in their lifetime).
Take that feeling you have. That sinking, depressing, awful feeling and put that onto every single person with pedophilic urges.
It's a situation to be pitied, not hated. They can never experience what many of us can daily or weekly or monthly. And they don't even have the social support structure to deal with those feelings.
If you're feeling sexually frustrated, you have friends who can and will listen and empathize. Imagine not being able to say anything to anyone ever. Even if you knew someone who wouldn't judge you, imagine the social stigma about the topic- the shame you feel just thinking about it. Why would you want to bring it up? You wouldn't feel comfortable with it even IF you trusted that person not to flip out and call the police on you.
This was one more roll of the genetic dice that you happened to get lucky on.
Not something you willfully did to "be a better person."
Another thing- Have you ever been uncomfortable with something about yourself? (Preferably something you can't change, but it's somewhat relevant even if it was something you could change)
Doesn't that suck? To look at yourself in the mirror and to be unhappy? To hate yourself? To be so ashamed of who or what you are that you want to die? I'm sure a lot of us have been there.
Has someone ever tried to pressure you into changing? Has someone ever made you feel as though it was imperative to make that change? Have relationships or friendships hinged on that change? Even if you couldn't actually do it?
We have to learn to accept and cope with what we have. If we can change the things we dislike, that's part of coping- but if we can't, then we have to cope another way. You can't will away the gay. You can't pray away your "unclean" lusts. You can't trick yourself into not being who you are or attracted to what you are. You just have to cope with it.
And that coping process is a helluva lot easier if you don't have idiots sticking their nose in your face and telling you how you ought to be all day.
Just try to empathize with what someone with pedophilic urges is going through. Maybe if society was better about helping people cope, we wouldn't have so many goddamn actual pedophiles sitting around in prison after no one was around to help them through their shitty situation.
Take this post and replace the current issue with any other issue of gender or sexuality or identity, and you're pretty much set.
-
Wads
DISCLAIMER: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DO NOT TAKE THIS TO MEAN I CONDONE OR ACCEPT THE AWFUL ACTIONS TAKEN BY PEOPLE IN THIS SITUATION. I DO NOT.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Temporary Hiatus
No doubt my two readers have noticed that my consistency has been slipping with new posts, and I do apologize for that.
I'm going to be taking a little time off and hopefully re-energizing my desire to write.
In the meantime, if I have anything I really want to write about, I'll do it a la carte as it comes up and I'll continue to post those to Facebook.
-
Wads
I'm going to be taking a little time off and hopefully re-energizing my desire to write.
In the meantime, if I have anything I really want to write about, I'll do it a la carte as it comes up and I'll continue to post those to Facebook.
-
Wads
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)