It's always interesting when socialist ideas are harnessed to ensure the continuation of the version of capitalism by which the West is currently entranced.
This article by Stephen Long exposes a tactic corporate welfarists have relied on for some time in Australia: the diversion of workers' pay to compulsory superannuation schemes. It shows that workers would have been better off if their pay had been shunted into bank term deposits or even government bonds since records started being kept by APRA in 1997, than if 9% of their pay had been poured into superannuation funds. This blog has covered this issue before. However, one thing that needs to be pointed out is that the share market has been propped up not just by the actual transfer of wealth from workers to corporations, but also by compound interest and opportunity costs from the 9% diversion.
Paul Keating should hang his head in shame.
6 August 2010
Gender Inequities at Different Levels of the Career Path
I recently had a conversation with a close female whilst in the middle of an academic crisis. In what she would have considered gracious words for herself, she said that in her job as a supervisor it was usually males who she had to nurture more, or supervise more closely. She said it in a derogatory tone and implied that males are spoon-fed while growing up, thus giving them a lack of initiative and self-reliance when thrust into the workforce. Her implications may be true. This woman is less reflective and more defensive than me, so I said nothing, but thought, "Listen to yourself".
When we look at gender disparities in workplace pay - in which females usually come out second best - we have decided that the problem is with the system, not with females.
According to the WHO, in 2004 males committed suicide at around four times the rate of females.
When males "underperform", scarce thought is given to the fact that there may actually be systemic, cultural or environmental factors at play.
As an axiom, it should be held that no gender is superior or inferior to the other. Any propositions that conflict with this axiom should be given scrutiny and should be red flagged as suspect. There are differences in physical makeup, emotionality and intellect between the genders. We should recognise such differences, and if we think it appropriate, institute programs to make up for such differences. Affirmative action is an example of such a program.
Society doesn't expect men and women to compete against each other in sport.
There are obvious differences between the two genders.
But thinking that one gender is superior to another reflects a type of bigotry or lack of philosophy.
When we look at gender disparities in workplace pay - in which females usually come out second best - we have decided that the problem is with the system, not with females.
According to the WHO, in 2004 males committed suicide at around four times the rate of females.
When males "underperform", scarce thought is given to the fact that there may actually be systemic, cultural or environmental factors at play.
As an axiom, it should be held that no gender is superior or inferior to the other. Any propositions that conflict with this axiom should be given scrutiny and should be red flagged as suspect. There are differences in physical makeup, emotionality and intellect between the genders. We should recognise such differences, and if we think it appropriate, institute programs to make up for such differences. Affirmative action is an example of such a program.
Society doesn't expect men and women to compete against each other in sport.
There are obvious differences between the two genders.
But thinking that one gender is superior to another reflects a type of bigotry or lack of philosophy.
3 August 2010
Homonormativity; Sexual Cycles; Sexual Identity, Behaviour and Orientation; Gay Marriage
I don't actually believe in the concept of static homosexuality (it's a construct that's only 100 years old, and only in Anglo-Western society) but I finally caved in to homonormative bigots at the age of 25 and chose to call myself "gay" so that I could actually have relationships and not derogatorily be considered just "trade”. Sex is much easier to get with gay males than with hetero females. I’m pragmatic. But I don't even think the whole thing’s even about a gay-bi-straight spectrum.. for instance I cycle at different times of the year, even within a day.. and my intra-gender tastes cycle too. It makes people I have relationships with insecure so I have to hide it.
And I think that different senses can have different orientations simultaneously.. eg in general I'm more visually attracted to males but with the tactile I'm more attracted to females. Even that cycles too. But i can accept that other people may not be like me, that there are bell-curves and polarity-swinging involved, and don't dismiss people who identify as "straight", "gay” or "bi" exclusively. Just as I think those people shouldn't judge my sexuality either.
Then there is the difference between identification, behaviour and inner feelings. I don't think people who identify as gay should judge people who identify as straight but have inner homoerotic desires, vice versa, etc, etc.
As for marriage, it is a legal institution with boundaries. For instance, we don't allow inter-species marriage, or marriage with under 16s. Is it racist to denounce Aboriginal religious beliefs about 12 year olds being ready for marriage? With paedophilia, again, where do you draw the line? For me the whole thing is about power disparities. For instance, I was sexually precocious, was physically, emotionally, and intellectually ready for sex at the age of 11, and I had it. I wouldn't consider it paedophilic for an adult to have consensual sex with me at that age because I was in control. I know people who aren't emotionally ready for sex at the age of 25. I would consider it paedophilic to have sex with such a person because of the power disparity. With marriage, it used to be an institution to entrench power disparities between men and women. It still sometimes is, but it's evolving. I don't believe in it myself. But I wouldn't deny other people the right to it. Now that it's generally cool in Western society to accept people who identify as "gay", society is probably ready to allow marriage between such people. But we're not ready for inter-species marriage or to accommodate Aboriginal concepts of marriage. Boundaries, boundaries, boundaries. I think that people who deride people against gay marriage should think for a bit, judge a little less, and not glibly throw around epithets like "bigot".
Sometimes chasing heteronormative definitions of relationships in gay relationships can be self-destructive. For instance, a lot of harm was done when lesbians used to have to define themselves as "butch" or "femme" and nothing in between. Ditto when some gay men feel that gay men have to be divided into "tops" and "bottoms". If there are no power disparities entrenched by such divisions, or by chasing gay marriage, then go for it. But if there are, we should have a second think.
I just think that there are more important things for the gay community to put energy into, such as stopping violence against gay people (which is still rampant, i can personally tell you), the spread of HIV, etc.
And I think that different senses can have different orientations simultaneously.. eg in general I'm more visually attracted to males but with the tactile I'm more attracted to females. Even that cycles too. But i can accept that other people may not be like me, that there are bell-curves and polarity-swinging involved, and don't dismiss people who identify as "straight", "gay” or "bi" exclusively. Just as I think those people shouldn't judge my sexuality either.
Then there is the difference between identification, behaviour and inner feelings. I don't think people who identify as gay should judge people who identify as straight but have inner homoerotic desires, vice versa, etc, etc.
As for marriage, it is a legal institution with boundaries. For instance, we don't allow inter-species marriage, or marriage with under 16s. Is it racist to denounce Aboriginal religious beliefs about 12 year olds being ready for marriage? With paedophilia, again, where do you draw the line? For me the whole thing is about power disparities. For instance, I was sexually precocious, was physically, emotionally, and intellectually ready for sex at the age of 11, and I had it. I wouldn't consider it paedophilic for an adult to have consensual sex with me at that age because I was in control. I know people who aren't emotionally ready for sex at the age of 25. I would consider it paedophilic to have sex with such a person because of the power disparity. With marriage, it used to be an institution to entrench power disparities between men and women. It still sometimes is, but it's evolving. I don't believe in it myself. But I wouldn't deny other people the right to it. Now that it's generally cool in Western society to accept people who identify as "gay", society is probably ready to allow marriage between such people. But we're not ready for inter-species marriage or to accommodate Aboriginal concepts of marriage. Boundaries, boundaries, boundaries. I think that people who deride people against gay marriage should think for a bit, judge a little less, and not glibly throw around epithets like "bigot".
Sometimes chasing heteronormative definitions of relationships in gay relationships can be self-destructive. For instance, a lot of harm was done when lesbians used to have to define themselves as "butch" or "femme" and nothing in between. Ditto when some gay men feel that gay men have to be divided into "tops" and "bottoms". If there are no power disparities entrenched by such divisions, or by chasing gay marriage, then go for it. But if there are, we should have a second think.
I just think that there are more important things for the gay community to put energy into, such as stopping violence against gay people (which is still rampant, i can personally tell you), the spread of HIV, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
