Question: How much truth in practice is really seen in the "Separation of Church and State" demanded by the First Amendment according to Thomas Jefferson?
Scenario: Imagine for just one second that you are an Atheist or Agnostic. Or even a Polytheist. In America, unlike the rest of the world, you are supposed to be "accepted" and not feel chastised for your beliefs. You are supposed to feel safe to practice what you believe in without being pressured or harassed into another faith's beliefs. You understand that as long as you are violating no one's natural human rights (I'm looking at you Mormon rapists) then you are free to practice your faith as you see fit.
However, you know that you live in a Christian, monotheistic country. No matter what's in print, the reality is otherwise. It's on your money, it's in your Pledge of Allegiance. It's written into the fiber of local and national laws and no matter how badly you may want a fair trial (WM3) you will never get one that's truly unbiased. Not if they find out who you are and what you believe.
Thoughts: The dollar bill, the Pledge of Allegiance. Suddenly you are unAmerican if you do not "respect" the history. Are Germans supposed to just embrace the Nazi insignia of their past? No. Just because something is aged, does not give it precedent over all other ideals or designs. One can love their country, their fellow man and respect others without believeing in a god. In fact, someone's faith in Satanism or Atheism no more makes them a bad member of society any more than a person's affiliation in Christian churches absolves them of all sin. It's high time we mature beyond our past and learn to accept the ideas of others. Just because you disagree on a church or a worshipping practice does not mean you cannot live together peacefully, this is not the Nationalist party of Hitler's era which demanded separation based on faith and language.
Scenario 2: You have lived your life respecting others and doing what you believe to be right in your heart. However, you now find yourself on trial for a crime which, in your mind, is no crime at all. You cannot comprehend why others are so determined to "convert" you to their faith that they are willing to alter teh very law structure of your state and country and label you a criminal. In some cases, they're even willing to lock people away for "crimes" which have their only backing in a holy book written by men of another faith.
Thoughts: It's depressing to think that the supposed "freest country in the world" is still openly and blatantly denying people their civil and human rights because of their faith. For example, let's take a look at Mormons. I know I just called them out for rape and child abuse, but let's look at the more legal practice of polygamy. What's REALLY wrong with it? Assuming that they are following the age limitation laws of their state and not committing child molestation, then why go after a group of adults willing to live together? There is no crime being committed. If your argument against a group is based solely on your own personal religious beliefs (monogamy) instead of being based on basic civil rights, then you should not be in a lawmaking position. Polygamy laws are useless and insulting to people who do not truly violate any natural law. On top of this, we have laws about abortion and marriage. Both individual choices being taken away because of the personal faith of a lawmaker.
Closing: Yes, all religions should be held accountable to the same set of laws. If you are a Mormom who believes in polygamy, then you should be allowed to do so. WITHOUT violating any age limitation or slavery laws. All women should be allowed the rights due to them as a citizen of this country. The same goes for the man who recently stoned his own daughter. You are a murderer. You were free to practice your faith up to the point that you did not violate the rights of a nother human being. HOWEVER, passing laws against things like prostitution or abortion are not laws which should be made lightly based on your own faith. Laws like "hate speech" take away the very right one has to express their ideals. When a person calls someone a "baby killer" after having a medical abortion just 2 weeks into their pregnancy they are using hate speech as well. But you would never win that case, not in the system we have now. It favors the view of a monotheistic, Christian society. Remove the veil of Christianity which has so long biased the laws of this country. Creationism is a faith, not a science. Marriage is a choice no state system should be allowed to pass law on. SEPERATE the two as the founders intended and stop trying to enforce religious ideals into a system that's supposed to work for ALL men, not just those on the approved list.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Sin City: the Benefits of Legalized Vices
Question: Should Las Vegas serve as a prototype for legalized prostitution? How would the same laws impact other vices such as gambling and drug use?
Scenario: Prostitution has been legalized. Sort of. Now men and women who wish to engage in the perfectly legal pornography industry, sans cameras, will now be able to. Because it's legal, it's regulated. It's safe. The "product" is now checked by a physician and every client is screened for disease and violence. Workers have rights they never had before and the employers are no longer allowed to exploit them.
Thoughts: That said it all. Exploitation has been the battle cry of women's rights groups for decades. But a prostitute with rights and set income who is being taken care of through healthcare and housing is not a woman being exploited. She is a woman doing with her body what she wants to. This is the example Vegas has set for the rest of the US. We have no REAL reason not to follow suit. No legal precedent.
Scenario 2: You got a nice bonus at work this week. An extra $50. You think you'll buy a 6 pack and play a little Texas Hold 'Em when you get home only to log on and find out all the gambling sites have been blocked from US access. A clear violation of the Fair Trade Agreement, but you don't get to make the rules and now you'll just have to spend that extra cash on LEGAL vices like more beer or some smokes.
Thoughts: Reason magazine recently wrote a wonderful piece of journalism which broke down exactly why online gambling and, in fact, ALL gambling should be legalized. For starters, they explained that the fear most have of gamblers becoming addicts is a myth. Less than 5% of gamblers who gamble "regularly" are addicted to it. In fact, they are no more "addicted" to the activity than one who plays video games or goes jogging every morning. Many would call it their "hobby" and on average they spend less than $20 a night. So I ask you this, lawmakers and moral enforcers, DEFINE ADDICTION. If a man invests a large portion of his income into remaking old cars, does he have a hobby or an addiction? Since when did the line get crossed between the two? Just because large sums of income are used in an activity does not equate addiction. What about passion? Define that one.
In my opinion: A hobby is something you do for personal enjoyment and fun. An addiction is said activity taken to the point that it interferes with and prevents you from having the happiness you originally sought. However, these are vagaries and neither activity should be deemed "illegal". You might want to advise against addictions or set up help groups and counseling, but altering the law to reflect your personal moral code is not acceptable. The CHOICE should still be left to the individual.
Scenario 3: You come home from a long day on the job and instead of reaching for a cold beer, you roll a joint and sit in front of the TV waiting for your girlfriend to finish dinner. You're a criminal.
Thoughts: That's it. As hard as it is to grasp for some people, marijuana and many other drugs are not instantly bad nor deadly. Like her legal cousins alcohol and cigarettes, marijuana won't KILL you. In fact, it's just a relaxer which calms the mind and muscles. That's why medicinal marijuana is becoming more widely accepted, it relieves pain. You know, like old grandmothers used to rub your gums with rum or whiskey while you were teething. Patients suffering chronic pain can now experience temporary relief in the form of another chemical. However, the fight to make this drug along with so many other legalized has become an uphill battle. People determined to force their moral beliefs on others have decided that only "approved" drugs should be legalized. Stop and let that sink in.
Now, I hate wool. It's itchy and I'm allergic to animals so I cannot tolerate it. In fact, if I touch anything in a store or brush against someone wearing wool, I will get itchy. It's an inconvenience. But that's all it is. It is not within my rights to complain and get these item pulled from shelves everywhere. Why then do some people assume that these basic laws of human rights do not apply to certain drugs? Drugs used in the privacy of your own home. Remember, I already said that AS LONG as you are NOT violating someone else's rights, then you should be allowed to engage in any activity you like. This means I favor DUI laws, but I still think bars should be open. Same goes for marijuana and any other drug someone wants to use on their own body. If it kills them or makes them lose their job etc, it is not my place to tell them they cannot do it. I am allowed to tell them they SHOULD NOT, but nothing more.
Closing: Enforced "moral codes" are a violation of the same human rights our founding fathers moved here to preserve. The basic idea behind our law structure was that one should be allowed the maximum amount of freedoms available to them as long as they did not violate the freedom and rights of another human being. In other words, you can spend your money on whatever you want to spend it on as long as it's not murder or robbery. When a person works for a particular wage, it is income they have earned. This disposable income is now their property and should they decide to donate half of it to a church, build a new strip club or buy a pound of marijuana then they should be within their legal rights to do so. The problem is, with current laws the way they are, this is not possible. People are not allowed to do to their bodies what they wish nor are they allowed to use their assets as they wish. No one is forcing you to be party to something you disagree with morally. However, by forcing others into "the dark" and making their happiness an illegal activity or a crime, you are violating their rights.
In the end, making certain activities legal would benefit everyone involved. The activities would become safer and would be taxable by the government. Set your personal beliefs aside for one moment and tell me that's bad. It's not.
Scenario: Prostitution has been legalized. Sort of. Now men and women who wish to engage in the perfectly legal pornography industry, sans cameras, will now be able to. Because it's legal, it's regulated. It's safe. The "product" is now checked by a physician and every client is screened for disease and violence. Workers have rights they never had before and the employers are no longer allowed to exploit them.
Thoughts: That said it all. Exploitation has been the battle cry of women's rights groups for decades. But a prostitute with rights and set income who is being taken care of through healthcare and housing is not a woman being exploited. She is a woman doing with her body what she wants to. This is the example Vegas has set for the rest of the US. We have no REAL reason not to follow suit. No legal precedent.
Scenario 2: You got a nice bonus at work this week. An extra $50. You think you'll buy a 6 pack and play a little Texas Hold 'Em when you get home only to log on and find out all the gambling sites have been blocked from US access. A clear violation of the Fair Trade Agreement, but you don't get to make the rules and now you'll just have to spend that extra cash on LEGAL vices like more beer or some smokes.
Thoughts: Reason magazine recently wrote a wonderful piece of journalism which broke down exactly why online gambling and, in fact, ALL gambling should be legalized. For starters, they explained that the fear most have of gamblers becoming addicts is a myth. Less than 5% of gamblers who gamble "regularly" are addicted to it. In fact, they are no more "addicted" to the activity than one who plays video games or goes jogging every morning. Many would call it their "hobby" and on average they spend less than $20 a night. So I ask you this, lawmakers and moral enforcers, DEFINE ADDICTION. If a man invests a large portion of his income into remaking old cars, does he have a hobby or an addiction? Since when did the line get crossed between the two? Just because large sums of income are used in an activity does not equate addiction. What about passion? Define that one.
In my opinion: A hobby is something you do for personal enjoyment and fun. An addiction is said activity taken to the point that it interferes with and prevents you from having the happiness you originally sought. However, these are vagaries and neither activity should be deemed "illegal". You might want to advise against addictions or set up help groups and counseling, but altering the law to reflect your personal moral code is not acceptable. The CHOICE should still be left to the individual.
Scenario 3: You come home from a long day on the job and instead of reaching for a cold beer, you roll a joint and sit in front of the TV waiting for your girlfriend to finish dinner. You're a criminal.
Thoughts: That's it. As hard as it is to grasp for some people, marijuana and many other drugs are not instantly bad nor deadly. Like her legal cousins alcohol and cigarettes, marijuana won't KILL you. In fact, it's just a relaxer which calms the mind and muscles. That's why medicinal marijuana is becoming more widely accepted, it relieves pain. You know, like old grandmothers used to rub your gums with rum or whiskey while you were teething. Patients suffering chronic pain can now experience temporary relief in the form of another chemical. However, the fight to make this drug along with so many other legalized has become an uphill battle. People determined to force their moral beliefs on others have decided that only "approved" drugs should be legalized. Stop and let that sink in.
Now, I hate wool. It's itchy and I'm allergic to animals so I cannot tolerate it. In fact, if I touch anything in a store or brush against someone wearing wool, I will get itchy. It's an inconvenience. But that's all it is. It is not within my rights to complain and get these item pulled from shelves everywhere. Why then do some people assume that these basic laws of human rights do not apply to certain drugs? Drugs used in the privacy of your own home. Remember, I already said that AS LONG as you are NOT violating someone else's rights, then you should be allowed to engage in any activity you like. This means I favor DUI laws, but I still think bars should be open. Same goes for marijuana and any other drug someone wants to use on their own body. If it kills them or makes them lose their job etc, it is not my place to tell them they cannot do it. I am allowed to tell them they SHOULD NOT, but nothing more.
Closing: Enforced "moral codes" are a violation of the same human rights our founding fathers moved here to preserve. The basic idea behind our law structure was that one should be allowed the maximum amount of freedoms available to them as long as they did not violate the freedom and rights of another human being. In other words, you can spend your money on whatever you want to spend it on as long as it's not murder or robbery. When a person works for a particular wage, it is income they have earned. This disposable income is now their property and should they decide to donate half of it to a church, build a new strip club or buy a pound of marijuana then they should be within their legal rights to do so. The problem is, with current laws the way they are, this is not possible. People are not allowed to do to their bodies what they wish nor are they allowed to use their assets as they wish. No one is forcing you to be party to something you disagree with morally. However, by forcing others into "the dark" and making their happiness an illegal activity or a crime, you are violating their rights.
In the end, making certain activities legal would benefit everyone involved. The activities would become safer and would be taxable by the government. Set your personal beliefs aside for one moment and tell me that's bad. It's not.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Credit Ratings: Who Do They Really Protect?
Question: What does your credit rating REALLY reveal about your character or trustworthiness? When should or shouldn't it be used to rate you and why?
Scenario: Mr. Smith came from a poor, workingclass family whose parents both worked just enough to put food on the table. He makes average grades in school and applies for as many scholarships as he can, but college is still expensive; especially on his fast food cashier's salary. Now that he's 18, the credit card companies are all over campus and in his mail box promising him a brighter future. His parents raised him to work for everything in life and yet he caves and gets 3 new cards to help pay for college tuition and books. He cuts the cards up vowing never to use them again.
It is now 4 years later and Mr. Smith finally has a degree and starts paying off the bills he's been behind on for 4 years. His credit isn't doing too well, but it could be much worse. Now that one of the cards is paid off again, he uses it to furnish the new apartment he and his girlfriend just bought. The couch, the bed, the diningroom table, it all goes on plastic because his new job is sure to help pay the bills.
4 years later and Mr. Smith is further in the hole. He now has a car with a horrible interest rate not to mention the over-priced insurance. College loans are coming in from Sallie Mae and the 40 hours a week just isn't paying everything. His girlfriend is now his wife and with a baby on the way, she can only work part time. They've talked about getting a bigger house but know it's impossible. The downward spiral of debt has captured another victim. Any time he tries to get a loan, or open a new account or even get a better job, Mr. Smith will be treated like a criminal now. All because his income couldn't keep up with his life.
Thoughts: The sad thing is, most Americans who have horrible credit ratings are the lower-middle working class. The people who go to work every day trying to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. The two largest life-changes which affect one's credit rating are college and marriage/divorce. Common life choices which cost one many thousands of dollars involve investing or withdrawing loans over one's income in order to achieve a higher market value or better job which will, hopefully, help you catch up and pay off your debts. They live in fear, unable to save for retirement or risk taking time off work. Many of these people find themselves denied the many money-saving techniques reserved for people who already have perfect credit. For example, lower intrest rates on everything from vehicles to housing. And now, many higher-level jobs require credit checks to assert an employee's "trustworthiness" even if they are not handling cash or working in a finacial department.
Scenario 2: Let's pretend for a moment that Mr. Smith grew up in an affluent family with two working parents who paid for everything he wanted and more. He had more free time to study because he didn't have to work. he got straight A's in school, was class valedictorian and was offered several scholarships. His parents paid for everything else so that he could attend the best University and not have to work during college. They even give him two credit cards in his name which they make sure to have their accountant pay off in full at the end of each month. He never recieves the bills for his spending or his cell phone or his car insurance.
4 years later Mr. Smith has no work experience, but he has a degree from a renowned school and easily lands the dream job his education afforded him. He uses his new wealth to buy a better car and a nice house with wonderful new furniture. Thanks to low interest rates and a high paying job, Mr. Smith has no problem paying off all of the bills on time and maintaining the perfect credit score his parents built for him.
Another 4 years later finds Mr. Smith comfotably contributing to his 401k and setting aside a nice College tuition fund should his children decide to attend school overseas. He has hired a personal accountant to make sure he saves the most money as possible therefore solidifying a future for his children.
Thoughts: Some people just get a better start in life than others. But why is it that the credit score system is designed to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor? The way things are now, people whose parents teach them no responsibility and allow their children to waste extreme amounts of money on frivilous needs like brand clothing and electronic trinkets are not raising "responsible" adults. However, according to their credit ratings, they are deemed "more responsible" than someone who worked for their entire life to earn and pay for everyhing they have.
The two most disgusting abuses of this Credit Rating system is when it is used to deny someone employment or housing. Unless and employee works in a bank giving loans to others, I cannot see how their credit rating truly reveals anything about their character. The same goes for housing. I've heard the reply that "allowing people with bad credit to live here would invite more criminals to the neighborhood." The fallacy in that statement is that a sucessful criminal like a rich pimp or a drug dealer could afford to build good credit. What people fail to realize is that credit ratings do not show a person's responsibility level. All it really shows is their disposable income.
Closing: Credit Rating Systems were designed to protect investors from lending money or mobile property (like a boat or a car) to someone who cannot afford to reimburse them for said loan. This is completely understandable. If you are trying to get a bank loan or a new car, then whether or not you CAN have it should be up to your credit score. If one would like to take the risk of going outside their current income in hopes of better income (new business startup or college loans) then they should know the risk AND get charged a higher rate or downpayment based on Credit Ratings. I understand this.
However, I do not believe that one's employment nor one's home purchase should be based on their credit history. These two facets of your life are not only necessary for survival but they are also wholly unrelated to your ability to repay on a debt. Employment is allowing one to earn income. Denying people better jobs based on their credit merely ensures that the rich get the best jobs, not that the "most responsible" people do. If Paris Hilton teaches the world anything, it should be that perfect credit does NOT equal perfect employee. As for housing: that's why the word EVICTION exists. If the property loaned is not mobile, then it should not be based on credit.
Scenario: Mr. Smith came from a poor, workingclass family whose parents both worked just enough to put food on the table. He makes average grades in school and applies for as many scholarships as he can, but college is still expensive; especially on his fast food cashier's salary. Now that he's 18, the credit card companies are all over campus and in his mail box promising him a brighter future. His parents raised him to work for everything in life and yet he caves and gets 3 new cards to help pay for college tuition and books. He cuts the cards up vowing never to use them again.
It is now 4 years later and Mr. Smith finally has a degree and starts paying off the bills he's been behind on for 4 years. His credit isn't doing too well, but it could be much worse. Now that one of the cards is paid off again, he uses it to furnish the new apartment he and his girlfriend just bought. The couch, the bed, the diningroom table, it all goes on plastic because his new job is sure to help pay the bills.
4 years later and Mr. Smith is further in the hole. He now has a car with a horrible interest rate not to mention the over-priced insurance. College loans are coming in from Sallie Mae and the 40 hours a week just isn't paying everything. His girlfriend is now his wife and with a baby on the way, she can only work part time. They've talked about getting a bigger house but know it's impossible. The downward spiral of debt has captured another victim. Any time he tries to get a loan, or open a new account or even get a better job, Mr. Smith will be treated like a criminal now. All because his income couldn't keep up with his life.
Thoughts: The sad thing is, most Americans who have horrible credit ratings are the lower-middle working class. The people who go to work every day trying to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. The two largest life-changes which affect one's credit rating are college and marriage/divorce. Common life choices which cost one many thousands of dollars involve investing or withdrawing loans over one's income in order to achieve a higher market value or better job which will, hopefully, help you catch up and pay off your debts. They live in fear, unable to save for retirement or risk taking time off work. Many of these people find themselves denied the many money-saving techniques reserved for people who already have perfect credit. For example, lower intrest rates on everything from vehicles to housing. And now, many higher-level jobs require credit checks to assert an employee's "trustworthiness" even if they are not handling cash or working in a finacial department.
Scenario 2: Let's pretend for a moment that Mr. Smith grew up in an affluent family with two working parents who paid for everything he wanted and more. He had more free time to study because he didn't have to work. he got straight A's in school, was class valedictorian and was offered several scholarships. His parents paid for everything else so that he could attend the best University and not have to work during college. They even give him two credit cards in his name which they make sure to have their accountant pay off in full at the end of each month. He never recieves the bills for his spending or his cell phone or his car insurance.
4 years later Mr. Smith has no work experience, but he has a degree from a renowned school and easily lands the dream job his education afforded him. He uses his new wealth to buy a better car and a nice house with wonderful new furniture. Thanks to low interest rates and a high paying job, Mr. Smith has no problem paying off all of the bills on time and maintaining the perfect credit score his parents built for him.
Another 4 years later finds Mr. Smith comfotably contributing to his 401k and setting aside a nice College tuition fund should his children decide to attend school overseas. He has hired a personal accountant to make sure he saves the most money as possible therefore solidifying a future for his children.
Thoughts: Some people just get a better start in life than others. But why is it that the credit score system is designed to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor? The way things are now, people whose parents teach them no responsibility and allow their children to waste extreme amounts of money on frivilous needs like brand clothing and electronic trinkets are not raising "responsible" adults. However, according to their credit ratings, they are deemed "more responsible" than someone who worked for their entire life to earn and pay for everyhing they have.
The two most disgusting abuses of this Credit Rating system is when it is used to deny someone employment or housing. Unless and employee works in a bank giving loans to others, I cannot see how their credit rating truly reveals anything about their character. The same goes for housing. I've heard the reply that "allowing people with bad credit to live here would invite more criminals to the neighborhood." The fallacy in that statement is that a sucessful criminal like a rich pimp or a drug dealer could afford to build good credit. What people fail to realize is that credit ratings do not show a person's responsibility level. All it really shows is their disposable income.
Closing: Credit Rating Systems were designed to protect investors from lending money or mobile property (like a boat or a car) to someone who cannot afford to reimburse them for said loan. This is completely understandable. If you are trying to get a bank loan or a new car, then whether or not you CAN have it should be up to your credit score. If one would like to take the risk of going outside their current income in hopes of better income (new business startup or college loans) then they should know the risk AND get charged a higher rate or downpayment based on Credit Ratings. I understand this.
However, I do not believe that one's employment nor one's home purchase should be based on their credit history. These two facets of your life are not only necessary for survival but they are also wholly unrelated to your ability to repay on a debt. Employment is allowing one to earn income. Denying people better jobs based on their credit merely ensures that the rich get the best jobs, not that the "most responsible" people do. If Paris Hilton teaches the world anything, it should be that perfect credit does NOT equal perfect employee. As for housing: that's why the word EVICTION exists. If the property loaned is not mobile, then it should not be based on credit.
Sexuality v. Intelligence: Are Women to Blame?
Question: Do women hold some responsibility in how they are treated and percieved in the workplace? If so, does this affect how we are respected as coworkers and equals?
Scenario: You're watching ESPN and a female anchor comes on who looks to be in her mid 20s, has a very pretty face and appears to have spent at least 3 hours in make up before the show. As a man, her appearance may strike you momentarily. In fact, unless she's wearing a lowcut blouse, you might no even blink twice before becoming distracted with the score windows and game ticker on the bottom screen. If you are particularly sexist, you might even be driven to drown out her voice in the assumption that women know nothing about sports.
Now, if you're a women, you're probably more inclined to go through a series of emotions. You are probably checking out her hair, makeup and outfit with a fine toothed comb trying to determine if this is how she normally dresses or if it's just a "costume" for work. You might be wondering whether she really knows what she's talking about and mockig her voice every time she giggles or misspeaks. Granted, you never once stop to think if you are judging her male counterparts with the same scrutiny. In fact, you've probably changed the channel by now and decided that she was only hired for looks alone. Believe me, I've gone through this without even realizing it.
Thoughts: What just happened? This is the backlash of women in the workplace alongside men. For men, there will always be the initial instinct to "check a girl out" on looks alone. And all women know this by now. It is this fact which keep women painfully aware of their appearance even when those around them no longer compelled to notice them physically. You never know when you'll meet someone new or run into an old friend. So, you have to look good at all times. Afterall, even we women judge other women by how they look before speaking with them.
Look at the second scenario. As soon as we see another woman, we are inspecting everything about her. She is, afterall, our competition. Even if you don't want to work for ESPN as a news anchor, maybe you love sports or have a boyfriend or husband who does. Because of this, the scenario has been created in your mind to not only be more knowledgable than her in sports but also, to look more attractive. Insanity.
So why do we think this way? Well, I cannot speak for all women, but I know why I do; it's an instinct to keep what I have worked for and validate my own achievements. Unecessary to the rational mind, of course. But as human beings we are emotional and instinctual, sometimes, before the rational mind has time to comprehend what has occured. In fact, I find myself constantly invalidating the intelligence of female coworkers simply vased on the level of their "sexiness". It's the mentality that one cannot possibly invest the time needed for both study and education while also maintaing physical form and taste in clothing/makeup. Of course, as a woman I should know this to be false.
A recent study was performed by Columbia University to compare the relative mentality of men and women in the workplace. http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/rfisman/gendercompetition_19dec06_rf.pdf showed evidence that women are more wary of and judgemental of their competition, i.e. other women. This drives them to act more negatively and prejudge other women more harshly. In fact, very little respect or merit is attributed to successful women whereas a man is more likely to believe she was promoted for her skill, a woman will assume it is "luck" or "looks" which propels women forward.
Another social study conducted by the NY Daily News surveyed the instinctual perception people hold regarding women in the workplace based solely on how they are dressed. They took one 30-something woman and put her in work pants, a suit jacket and button up shirt with flat heels. Her hair was pulled back and her makeup kept minimal. On perception alone, she was sent to several interviews with a preset resume highlighting her impressive career and education. The same woman was dressed more provocatively in a flowy knee-length skirt, a button up blouse and heels. Her hair was down and her make up more flashy. Still professional, just sexy. She was given the same resume and attended interviews as well. Then each outfit was tested with a less-than-favorable resume highlighting her lack of experience and a willingness to learn.
The results were as follows: Though men admitted in exit interviews that they were more aware of the feminity of the "more flattering" look initially, it was the less-flattering resume which mattered more than the woman's outfit. Sadly, over 70% of the female interviewers were more impressed by the dress styles of the interviewee than her resume. More women would have hired the good outfit/bad resume woman over the bad outfit/good resume one. Shocking? Not really.
Closing: So how can we fix this? If it is an instinct, it is not something which we can trully "ignore" or "fix". What we can do, however, is adjust our actions as the men have. You first have to embrace your instincts as a part of who you are. Men are inclined to think sexually of every woman they meet. However, that does not give them the free reign to act on it. The same goes for women. Though we are rigged to propel ourselves above the flock by highlighting the flaws of each woman we meet, it is doing a diservice to all of us if we are too vocal about our opinions. That's all they are; opinions. If you think someone is an "unintelligent tramp trying to sleep her way to the top" maybe she is. But maybe you're wrong. And in the effort to keep yourself on top you might end up making yourself look bad as well as dragging down the name of someone you may have called 'friend'. So watch your mouth, watch your actions and try to give women the same benefit of doubt you wish others would give you.
Scenario: You're watching ESPN and a female anchor comes on who looks to be in her mid 20s, has a very pretty face and appears to have spent at least 3 hours in make up before the show. As a man, her appearance may strike you momentarily. In fact, unless she's wearing a lowcut blouse, you might no even blink twice before becoming distracted with the score windows and game ticker on the bottom screen. If you are particularly sexist, you might even be driven to drown out her voice in the assumption that women know nothing about sports.
Now, if you're a women, you're probably more inclined to go through a series of emotions. You are probably checking out her hair, makeup and outfit with a fine toothed comb trying to determine if this is how she normally dresses or if it's just a "costume" for work. You might be wondering whether she really knows what she's talking about and mockig her voice every time she giggles or misspeaks. Granted, you never once stop to think if you are judging her male counterparts with the same scrutiny. In fact, you've probably changed the channel by now and decided that she was only hired for looks alone. Believe me, I've gone through this without even realizing it.
Thoughts: What just happened? This is the backlash of women in the workplace alongside men. For men, there will always be the initial instinct to "check a girl out" on looks alone. And all women know this by now. It is this fact which keep women painfully aware of their appearance even when those around them no longer compelled to notice them physically. You never know when you'll meet someone new or run into an old friend. So, you have to look good at all times. Afterall, even we women judge other women by how they look before speaking with them.
Look at the second scenario. As soon as we see another woman, we are inspecting everything about her. She is, afterall, our competition. Even if you don't want to work for ESPN as a news anchor, maybe you love sports or have a boyfriend or husband who does. Because of this, the scenario has been created in your mind to not only be more knowledgable than her in sports but also, to look more attractive. Insanity.
So why do we think this way? Well, I cannot speak for all women, but I know why I do; it's an instinct to keep what I have worked for and validate my own achievements. Unecessary to the rational mind, of course. But as human beings we are emotional and instinctual, sometimes, before the rational mind has time to comprehend what has occured. In fact, I find myself constantly invalidating the intelligence of female coworkers simply vased on the level of their "sexiness". It's the mentality that one cannot possibly invest the time needed for both study and education while also maintaing physical form and taste in clothing/makeup. Of course, as a woman I should know this to be false.
A recent study was performed by Columbia University to compare the relative mentality of men and women in the workplace. http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/rfisman/gendercompetition_19dec06_rf.pdf showed evidence that women are more wary of and judgemental of their competition, i.e. other women. This drives them to act more negatively and prejudge other women more harshly. In fact, very little respect or merit is attributed to successful women whereas a man is more likely to believe she was promoted for her skill, a woman will assume it is "luck" or "looks" which propels women forward.
Another social study conducted by the NY Daily News surveyed the instinctual perception people hold regarding women in the workplace based solely on how they are dressed. They took one 30-something woman and put her in work pants, a suit jacket and button up shirt with flat heels. Her hair was pulled back and her makeup kept minimal. On perception alone, she was sent to several interviews with a preset resume highlighting her impressive career and education. The same woman was dressed more provocatively in a flowy knee-length skirt, a button up blouse and heels. Her hair was down and her make up more flashy. Still professional, just sexy. She was given the same resume and attended interviews as well. Then each outfit was tested with a less-than-favorable resume highlighting her lack of experience and a willingness to learn.
The results were as follows: Though men admitted in exit interviews that they were more aware of the feminity of the "more flattering" look initially, it was the less-flattering resume which mattered more than the woman's outfit. Sadly, over 70% of the female interviewers were more impressed by the dress styles of the interviewee than her resume. More women would have hired the good outfit/bad resume woman over the bad outfit/good resume one. Shocking? Not really.
Closing: So how can we fix this? If it is an instinct, it is not something which we can trully "ignore" or "fix". What we can do, however, is adjust our actions as the men have. You first have to embrace your instincts as a part of who you are. Men are inclined to think sexually of every woman they meet. However, that does not give them the free reign to act on it. The same goes for women. Though we are rigged to propel ourselves above the flock by highlighting the flaws of each woman we meet, it is doing a diservice to all of us if we are too vocal about our opinions. That's all they are; opinions. If you think someone is an "unintelligent tramp trying to sleep her way to the top" maybe she is. But maybe you're wrong. And in the effort to keep yourself on top you might end up making yourself look bad as well as dragging down the name of someone you may have called 'friend'. So watch your mouth, watch your actions and try to give women the same benefit of doubt you wish others would give you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
