As a country, there are many issues that many people feel very passionately about. Sometimes, enough people feel strongly enough to take action and sometimes that is enough to start to make a change in the right direction.
With so many different causes, it is difficult to focus, which is why it is so difficult to get things done. What one person considers the most important thing, another would consider somewhere in the top ten, but not in the top five. Others might not consider it at all.
I also feel very strongly about many issues. Sometimes my opinion is very different than most, sometimes it is closely aligned with the majority. Sometimes, my personal priority for a particular issue is consistent with the majority. Sometimes, it is very different. All of these things are normal considering everyone has their own thoughts, ideas, passions, and history.
Every once in awhile, there is an issue that affects many others. I believe that issue is corporate money in politics. This issue affects everything from consumer protections to the environment to employee rights to foreign military aid to combating criminal violence and many, many more issues. Because this one thing affects so many others, fighting the individual battles for individual issues is extremely difficult and appears to be a Sisyphean task.
If, as a nation, as the citizenry, we focus on this one task, in a very short time, we can get the constitutional amendment to get corporate money out of politics altogether. Then, we can focus on the next thing without having to fight against the politicians that we elect.
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The worst of worlds
Slavery today is not just forcing people to work, it is often rape. But first, the abductors ensure the victim cannot escape. They bring them to a different country, usually with the promise of good work, then take their identification (passports). This does two things. It takes them away from everyone they know and puts them in an environment with which they are unfamiliar.
It's only rarely that we hear or read about this on the news, which is interesting because according to the Freedom Center (http://www.freedomcenter.org/slavery-today/) there are between 12 - 27 million people in some form of enslavement today. Many of those are children while about 75% are female. There are approximately 600,000 - 800,000 people trafficked internationally every year (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking/). If it is so prevalent, why do we not hear more about it.
Obviously, those in control of the slave trade do not want it to be front and center. They prefer it stays a non-issue. Also, many people would prefer not to admit it occurs.
It is interesting to me that we have a "War on Drugs" that most Americans know is a miserable failure, but we do not have a "War on Slavery." It may be challenging, but I think it is worth it to begin reallocating resources to stop slavery. The resources wasted on the war on drugs can be reduced by decriminalizing some drugs (for example, marijuana). This would also have the positive effect of increasing taxes, just think about how much in taxes is collected on tobacco (many millions of dollars).
We are starting to wake up. There are more resources available to educate people about human trafficking, both government and non-profit. There have also been some successes with convicting those guilty of trafficking. However, it needs to be a bigger issue. When people are oblivious to the fact that thousands of humans are brought into the country specifically for forced prostitution, how good can we feel about our society?
It's only rarely that we hear or read about this on the news, which is interesting because according to the Freedom Center (http://www.freedomcenter.org/slavery-today/) there are between 12 - 27 million people in some form of enslavement today. Many of those are children while about 75% are female. There are approximately 600,000 - 800,000 people trafficked internationally every year (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking/). If it is so prevalent, why do we not hear more about it.
Obviously, those in control of the slave trade do not want it to be front and center. They prefer it stays a non-issue. Also, many people would prefer not to admit it occurs.
It is interesting to me that we have a "War on Drugs" that most Americans know is a miserable failure, but we do not have a "War on Slavery." It may be challenging, but I think it is worth it to begin reallocating resources to stop slavery. The resources wasted on the war on drugs can be reduced by decriminalizing some drugs (for example, marijuana). This would also have the positive effect of increasing taxes, just think about how much in taxes is collected on tobacco (many millions of dollars).
We are starting to wake up. There are more resources available to educate people about human trafficking, both government and non-profit. There have also been some successes with convicting those guilty of trafficking. However, it needs to be a bigger issue. When people are oblivious to the fact that thousands of humans are brought into the country specifically for forced prostitution, how good can we feel about our society?
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Breast Cancer Awareness Month
A lot of effort has been expended on treatment, and rightfully so. The women who are subjected to breast cancer should be treated as best we are able. However, the other side is prevention, which some effort has been expended. Figuring out why women get breast cancer in the first, and subsequently figuring out how to prevent it should receive a significant amount of effort itself.
How to balance the two is challenging. By using money raised to learn about prevention takes money away from those suffering right now. Using money for treatment instead of prevention causes many more women to be subjected to breast cancer. There may not be an easy answer to this dilemma.
In my opinion, equal effort should be expended on each side of the equation. This has the obvious "it's fair" factor, but also, it shows equal respect to those who are suffering now and those for whom we may be able to prevent that suffering.
How to balance the two is challenging. By using money raised to learn about prevention takes money away from those suffering right now. Using money for treatment instead of prevention causes many more women to be subjected to breast cancer. There may not be an easy answer to this dilemma.
In my opinion, equal effort should be expended on each side of the equation. This has the obvious "it's fair" factor, but also, it shows equal respect to those who are suffering now and those for whom we may be able to prevent that suffering.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Finding Meaning
People need to have a feeling of purpose. However, for many, the job we are doing does not seem meaningful. This causes internal strife. We want our lives and what we do to mean something, to have some lasting effect.
"If you are not serving the customer, you should be serving those that do." I read that quote on a motivational poster. If you look at most jobs in this world, it does not seem like they contribute to something larger, in other words, to have some larger meaning. A data entry operator may see their job as tedious and even meaningless. However, almost every job contributes to the continuation of our society in some way, however small.
Take the data entry operator (DEO). If that job did not get done, the information may not be available to someone else. As an example, suppose the DEO is entering medical records for archival purposes. They may think it has no purpose, the paper copy can just be kept somewhere. However, some researcher may be interested in finding some cause and effect from either a treatment, symptoms, or some other medical situation. They may be able to use the information that was entered to discover something no one had discovered before. That discovery may even save lives in the future.
You can take most jobs and discern some value from them. It may not be apparent today, but there should always be hope that what you do will contribute, in some small way, to the betterment of humanity.
"If you are not serving the customer, you should be serving those that do." I read that quote on a motivational poster. If you look at most jobs in this world, it does not seem like they contribute to something larger, in other words, to have some larger meaning. A data entry operator may see their job as tedious and even meaningless. However, almost every job contributes to the continuation of our society in some way, however small.
Take the data entry operator (DEO). If that job did not get done, the information may not be available to someone else. As an example, suppose the DEO is entering medical records for archival purposes. They may think it has no purpose, the paper copy can just be kept somewhere. However, some researcher may be interested in finding some cause and effect from either a treatment, symptoms, or some other medical situation. They may be able to use the information that was entered to discover something no one had discovered before. That discovery may even save lives in the future.
You can take most jobs and discern some value from them. It may not be apparent today, but there should always be hope that what you do will contribute, in some small way, to the betterment of humanity.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Diffusion of Responsibility
In psychology, there is a concept called diffusion of responsibility. This concept was created sometime in the 1960's when a crime that was witnessed by many, but reported by none, caused many people to wonder how that could happen. Why would 30 people who see a violent crime occurring with an obvious victim, in this case a woman was being raped, not report it?
Psychologists almost immediately began to think about what kind of person would not at least call 911. What they discovered was that if only one person had witnessed the crime, that person would have called 911. It turns out that the more people that are present, the less responsible each individual person feels. For example, if 30 people witness a crime, in addition to thinking that someone else will call the police, each only feels 1/30 of the responsibility for actually making the call.
Interestingly, I'm going to use this as a segue into the issue of climate change. Science has all but proven that climate change is occurring and is a result of human actions. However, many people still feel compelled to deny it exists or that humans are responsible or cannot do anything about it. Those that deny it either have a hidden agenda or are unable to grasp the magnitude of the issue. Admittedly, it can seem daunting. However, it must be dealt with.
I believe that diffusion of responsibility plays a part as to why many people do not take action. Many likely feel that their small actions will not make any difference. The responsiblility is diffused by over six billion! How could one person's actions make any difference? Well, it can, and here's how: Each persons actions may be small, however, like a pebble in a pond, there is a ripple effect. When one person does something different for the environment, it is likely that someone else will notice, whether it's their child, a friend, coworker, etc. That persons actions may spark someone else to make a small change in their behavior which may spark a change in someone else's behavior, and so on.
Another ripple effect is what their behavior means for others. When I recycle, it not only recycled that material, it also let the recyclers know that there is a market for recycling. As more people recycle, the recycling companies or municipalities will increase capacity. Each person represents a small, incremental increase in the need for that capacity. The same applies when buying eco-friendly products. Buying one product may not seem like a lot. However, your example may cause someone else to buy, which may cause someone else, etc. This demonstrates to the company that there is a desire for that type of product. Increased production usually leads to increased efficiency and lower cost. It ends up being a win/win/win, the person gets a good product at a good price, the company makes a good product for a profit, and the environment is not damaged and may even be improved as a result.
So, I guess the important point to walk away with, or navigate away with, is to not think of yourself as one in over six billion-and-so-what-I-do-won't-make-any-difference, but to think of yourself as one who can make a difference. Your responsibility is not diffused. It is 100% with you.
Psychologists almost immediately began to think about what kind of person would not at least call 911. What they discovered was that if only one person had witnessed the crime, that person would have called 911. It turns out that the more people that are present, the less responsible each individual person feels. For example, if 30 people witness a crime, in addition to thinking that someone else will call the police, each only feels 1/30 of the responsibility for actually making the call.
Interestingly, I'm going to use this as a segue into the issue of climate change. Science has all but proven that climate change is occurring and is a result of human actions. However, many people still feel compelled to deny it exists or that humans are responsible or cannot do anything about it. Those that deny it either have a hidden agenda or are unable to grasp the magnitude of the issue. Admittedly, it can seem daunting. However, it must be dealt with.
I believe that diffusion of responsibility plays a part as to why many people do not take action. Many likely feel that their small actions will not make any difference. The responsiblility is diffused by over six billion! How could one person's actions make any difference? Well, it can, and here's how: Each persons actions may be small, however, like a pebble in a pond, there is a ripple effect. When one person does something different for the environment, it is likely that someone else will notice, whether it's their child, a friend, coworker, etc. That persons actions may spark someone else to make a small change in their behavior which may spark a change in someone else's behavior, and so on.
Another ripple effect is what their behavior means for others. When I recycle, it not only recycled that material, it also let the recyclers know that there is a market for recycling. As more people recycle, the recycling companies or municipalities will increase capacity. Each person represents a small, incremental increase in the need for that capacity. The same applies when buying eco-friendly products. Buying one product may not seem like a lot. However, your example may cause someone else to buy, which may cause someone else, etc. This demonstrates to the company that there is a desire for that type of product. Increased production usually leads to increased efficiency and lower cost. It ends up being a win/win/win, the person gets a good product at a good price, the company makes a good product for a profit, and the environment is not damaged and may even be improved as a result.
So, I guess the important point to walk away with, or navigate away with, is to not think of yourself as one in over six billion-and-so-what-I-do-won't-make-any-difference, but to think of yourself as one who can make a difference. Your responsibility is not diffused. It is 100% with you.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Religious controversy
Recently, Pakistan has blocked Facebook because there is a group that encourages people to post images of Mohammad. Basically, Muslims are telling the rest of the world that everyone else must respect the rules of Islam. If they want others to respect their rules, then Muslims should respect the rules of other religions. Most specifically, do not murder. The culture should not encourage people to blow themselves up to kill others. Admittedly, other cultures have murder. However, it is against the law and when offenders are caught, they are tried and hopefully convicted.
There is a sub culture in Islam that encourages murder and not just of combatants, but civilians, people not engaged in any type of warfare. When Muslim countries start going after those offenders, convicting and punishing the orchestrators, then, maybe, other cultures will have more respect for the rules of Islam.
There is a sub culture in Islam that encourages murder and not just of combatants, but civilians, people not engaged in any type of warfare. When Muslim countries start going after those offenders, convicting and punishing the orchestrators, then, maybe, other cultures will have more respect for the rules of Islam.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Jobs bill going in wrong direction
Some of you may have heard that there is a jobs bill that some politicians are trying to pass. I actually believe that a better way to create jobs is to put more pressure on banks or the Small Business Administration to make credit available to small businesses. Passing a jobs bill will cost tax payers money. The banks have money, thanks to the tax payers. Granted, most have paid it back, but we bailed them out when they screwed up, and now they are flush with cash.
I have heard experts talking about how banks are not giving loans out, virtually at all, to small businesses. I can understand being conservative, but many of these small businesses have borrowed and paid them back in the past. Sure, increase the criteria for borrowing, but don't make it unattainable. If banks would loan money, small businesses would have access to the money they need to expand, and hire people.
I have heard experts talking about how banks are not giving loans out, virtually at all, to small businesses. I can understand being conservative, but many of these small businesses have borrowed and paid them back in the past. Sure, increase the criteria for borrowing, but don't make it unattainable. If banks would loan money, small businesses would have access to the money they need to expand, and hire people.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Human Rights
There is a court case in California regarding the right of gay people to marry. Does anyone else see this as similar to when women were fighting for the right to vote? Or black people the right to be free. All throughout our history, groups of people that had less rights had to fight for equal rights. This is no different. It is a unique group, with supporters, fighting for a right the majority have. Can we not learn from history and simply grant the right as it should, and very likely will be?
Sunday, January 10, 2010
That One Thing
A couple weeks ago I mentioned that we should strive to do one thing a week this year to benefit society. One of my goals is to not take a car to work at least one day week. I took the bus twice in the first week. Unfortunately, the first day I did, I left my hat on the bus. So, do something good, but try not to lose something. That kind of defeats the purpose. Now I have to get another hat.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Modern Racism
I recently heard the term Modern Racism and a possible definition. I say possible because as a newer term, there is debate about its meaning. However, the phrase captures a meaning that needs to be differentiated, and that is as referring to the opinion that racism no longer exists and people other than white are getting more than they deserve via affirmative action. It is not traditional racism because a persons feelings are masked behind "equality."
Equality is the idea that people should be treated equally. It is something I firmly believe. However, I also believe that this society still has a long way to go before we reach a true equality. It is not just affirmative action, equal employment, and other supposed socially equalizing programs. It will be when a white person can walk in a black neighborhood and not have more fear than walking in a white neighborhood.
Some people will read that last sentence and think "Well, it is more dangerous for a white person in a black neighborhood." I will agree that it is more dangerous to walk in a poor neighborhood, which is an important distinction. Many white people associate black with poor and criminals. Black people do disproportionately make up the number of criminals behind bars. To me, the problem is that we let that happen.
As a society we have failed to meet the needs of those within the society. We have failed to educate everyone equally, to provide the necessary services, and ensure parents have the resources they need to raise their children in an environment that fosters a productive society. We need to break the negative cycle (that some people do not believe exists) and insert the idea that we are all in this society together. Then, ideally, modern racists will see that there are still many barriers to success for those that are not white.
Equality is the idea that people should be treated equally. It is something I firmly believe. However, I also believe that this society still has a long way to go before we reach a true equality. It is not just affirmative action, equal employment, and other supposed socially equalizing programs. It will be when a white person can walk in a black neighborhood and not have more fear than walking in a white neighborhood.
Some people will read that last sentence and think "Well, it is more dangerous for a white person in a black neighborhood." I will agree that it is more dangerous to walk in a poor neighborhood, which is an important distinction. Many white people associate black with poor and criminals. Black people do disproportionately make up the number of criminals behind bars. To me, the problem is that we let that happen.
As a society we have failed to meet the needs of those within the society. We have failed to educate everyone equally, to provide the necessary services, and ensure parents have the resources they need to raise their children in an environment that fosters a productive society. We need to break the negative cycle (that some people do not believe exists) and insert the idea that we are all in this society together. Then, ideally, modern racists will see that there are still many barriers to success for those that are not white.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Do one thing a week
The new year is just a few days away. That always makes me think about what I have accomplished this past year and what my goals should be the next year. Over the last few years I have done many things to reduce my carbon footprint from buying a hybrid when I needed a new car to installing a dual flush kit. But I still have a carbon footprint.
So, I need to keep up the trend of making those changes. Some have been small, some large. As long as we continue to make those changed, eventually, we will be living a lot more sustainably. For example, this year, I will make the effort to take the bus or ride my bike to work at least once a week. If I am successful for three months, I will increase that to twice a week.
The changes we make do not have to be ground breaking, or wallet breaking. I'll be the first to admit that I am too cheap to install solar panels on my house. I have, however, changed all of my lightbulbs to CFL's, bought LED holiday lights, and unplug everything that does not need to be plugged in. When solar panels or VAWT's become economically viable, i.e. they cost less than the cost of electricity over their life spans, then I will buy them.
So, look at what you do everyday and try to find little things that can reduce your carbon footprint. You may find, as I did, that taking the bus is a great time to catch up on some reading.
So, I need to keep up the trend of making those changes. Some have been small, some large. As long as we continue to make those changed, eventually, we will be living a lot more sustainably. For example, this year, I will make the effort to take the bus or ride my bike to work at least once a week. If I am successful for three months, I will increase that to twice a week.
The changes we make do not have to be ground breaking, or wallet breaking. I'll be the first to admit that I am too cheap to install solar panels on my house. I have, however, changed all of my lightbulbs to CFL's, bought LED holiday lights, and unplug everything that does not need to be plugged in. When solar panels or VAWT's become economically viable, i.e. they cost less than the cost of electricity over their life spans, then I will buy them.
So, look at what you do everyday and try to find little things that can reduce your carbon footprint. You may find, as I did, that taking the bus is a great time to catch up on some reading.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Starting Small
There was another news story about starting small when going green. Some people, feeling overwhelmed by all the things that going green entails, get paralyzed and therefore do not do anything. What most should do is start small. Change a few light bulbs, if you need a new toilet, consider dual flush, if you have to buy a new appliance, get one that is energy star compliant. There is no need to try to radically change the way you live. That is usually too intimidating for anyone, including myself.
This same philosophy can apply to equality. If you believe in equality, that does not mean others will. As with going green, trying to convince someone that equality is better is not an all or nothing proposition. As with going green, changing fundamental beliefs is intimidating. Try getting to the core of the persons ideas and thoughts, not just what they say initially. Listen to what they are saying and try to understand their perspective. It will give you the opportunity to respond to the real issue and not just the presented issue. If you can just get te person to think a little differently, maybe just start to question a deeply held racist or sexist belief, the conversation will have been a success.
And the person may be a little more open minded the next time you talk.
This same philosophy can apply to equality. If you believe in equality, that does not mean others will. As with going green, trying to convince someone that equality is better is not an all or nothing proposition. As with going green, changing fundamental beliefs is intimidating. Try getting to the core of the persons ideas and thoughts, not just what they say initially. Listen to what they are saying and try to understand their perspective. It will give you the opportunity to respond to the real issue and not just the presented issue. If you can just get te person to think a little differently, maybe just start to question a deeply held racist or sexist belief, the conversation will have been a success.
And the person may be a little more open minded the next time you talk.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Is prejudice ingrained in humans?
I read this quote today:
"If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other cause for prejudice by noon."
- George Aiken
Sadly, I see the truth in it. People always tend to find some reason to say that their small group is better than some other group. Even when all the people appear to be the same. Europe or Africa are prime examples. They all have similar physical appearance, especially countries very near to each other, yet, they always find a reason to hate each other.
I often wonder if this is intentionally promoted by those in power. This would be done for want of power. Each group has a leader and most leaders want to be in control of ever more, either territory, people, or wealth. If the groups in the next country is equal, that implies that it is fine for that leader to be in control. If the other groups is inferior, it gives a leader an excuse to conquer so they can "help the lesser people".
There are other places where prejudicial distinctions are made. Think about the grade school yard. Kids are notorious for discriminating. I don't think kids get to second grade without having very defined groups. Some people are able to move between groups, but in general, once a kid is labeled as a member of one group, that is how everyone will see them. Some of this is self selection based on dress, hair style, etc., but some is by association or behavior.
What will it take for humans to just see another human without having preconceived notions about what kind of person they are? Or at least to accept the person as they are (minus those that may do us harm)?
"If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other cause for prejudice by noon."
- George Aiken
Sadly, I see the truth in it. People always tend to find some reason to say that their small group is better than some other group. Even when all the people appear to be the same. Europe or Africa are prime examples. They all have similar physical appearance, especially countries very near to each other, yet, they always find a reason to hate each other.
I often wonder if this is intentionally promoted by those in power. This would be done for want of power. Each group has a leader and most leaders want to be in control of ever more, either territory, people, or wealth. If the groups in the next country is equal, that implies that it is fine for that leader to be in control. If the other groups is inferior, it gives a leader an excuse to conquer so they can "help the lesser people".
There are other places where prejudicial distinctions are made. Think about the grade school yard. Kids are notorious for discriminating. I don't think kids get to second grade without having very defined groups. Some people are able to move between groups, but in general, once a kid is labeled as a member of one group, that is how everyone will see them. Some of this is self selection based on dress, hair style, etc., but some is by association or behavior.
What will it take for humans to just see another human without having preconceived notions about what kind of person they are? Or at least to accept the person as they are (minus those that may do us harm)?
Saturday, November 22, 2008
The N-Word
Ahh, the n-word, the reviled word that white people are not allowed to ever say, but black people can utter at anytime. There's a teacher in Florida being punished, probably rightly so, for using the word in a classroom (http://www.stlamerican.com/articles/2008/10/27/news/local_news/localnews0000000000001.txt or the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qasfRkIAw9I). He, of course, is white. The news article never goes into the specifics of the situation, just the way he used it by writing in on the board in the acronym c.h.a.n.g.e. (Come Help A N***** Get Elected).
Most peoples reaction is probably that the teach never should have done what he did. I would agree. He chose a very poor method for teaching. But what was his intent? Is he a racist that was just passing along his racist attitudes to a mixed class? Or was he trying to teach the kids how pervasive language can be used to perpetuate racist ideologies? I could not find anything that says what the teacher specifically said in class or what his intent was.
I am of the opinion, and I'm not alone, that the word should be removed from use. It won't be easy for some, as this article points out: http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newWEST01112008.htm. But that does not mean we should not try. The only way to do this is to punish anyone who uses the term, white, black, or other. If a black teacher were to use the term, the punishment should be the same as if a white teacher used it. If a black student uses the term, the punishment should be the same as if a white student used it.
I do realize that historically the courts have not treated white and black criminals the same. I like to think that is changing. However, to say that because the courts do not treat people the same is an excuse to not treat people the same is other situations, is allowing a bad thing to be perpetuated. Perhaps the courts will become fairer after the language is made more fair.
Most peoples reaction is probably that the teach never should have done what he did. I would agree. He chose a very poor method for teaching. But what was his intent? Is he a racist that was just passing along his racist attitudes to a mixed class? Or was he trying to teach the kids how pervasive language can be used to perpetuate racist ideologies? I could not find anything that says what the teacher specifically said in class or what his intent was.
I am of the opinion, and I'm not alone, that the word should be removed from use. It won't be easy for some, as this article points out: http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newWEST01112008.htm. But that does not mean we should not try. The only way to do this is to punish anyone who uses the term, white, black, or other. If a black teacher were to use the term, the punishment should be the same as if a white teacher used it. If a black student uses the term, the punishment should be the same as if a white student used it.
I do realize that historically the courts have not treated white and black criminals the same. I like to think that is changing. However, to say that because the courts do not treat people the same is an excuse to not treat people the same is other situations, is allowing a bad thing to be perpetuated. Perhaps the courts will become fairer after the language is made more fair.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Sexual Trauma in Military
I recently read an article about sexual trauma and its results (http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20081028/hl_hsn/sexualtraumahauntsmanyfemalevets) which talks about sexual trauma in the military. It states that women, and men, who experience sexual trauma while serving in the military have higher rates of depression and PTSD afterward. This should not be surprising. What should be shocking, but unfortunately is not, is the fact that 14.5% (22% according to a different study) of women reported sexual trauma while serving.
It takes a strong woman to join the military. Then they are trained in combat. Yet, this horrible crime still occurs. I am not suggesting this is the victim's fault. It is always the attackers fault. It is sad that it is still occurring. One would think our military would have learned the lessons from a few years ago when they got in trouble for not doing enough to prosecute offenders of sexual assault. The article does not go into whether the crimes were even reporting. It was conducted by the VA for the purpose of getting a handle on and treating vets.
A question that comes to my mind is whether combat training is useful in stopping a sexual assault. Is the training they learn in the military effective at stopping an attack? If not, why not? It could be that a lot of these attacks occurred while a group of people were out at the bar and inebriated. This does not excuse the crime, but may provide a reason why someone was not effective in defense of themselves. If that is not the case, what type of combat training is necessary for a woman to defend herself?
I teach self defense. I enjoy teaching woman how to stop an attacker. I like to think that what I teach will work...but reading an article like the one listed above makes one wonder. What would truly be effective? A knife? A gun? A taser? It is challenging to teach women, who tend to be smaller and weaker than men, how to fend off an attack by someone who could be twice the size and four times as strong. The most important part is awareness and prevention. However, once an attack starts, viciousness and ruthlessness become critical.
Self defense is not for the squeemish. If there is any hesitation in gouging someone's eyes out, it could be fatal. A lot of people have a problem with this. I was teaching one woman how to break someone's grip on her wrist. It was only one session and I was holding very lightly, maybe 25%-50% at most. She never came back. I found out when she told a mutual friend that she believed no one who grab her that hard! And that was just a wrist grab. She will experience a rude awakening if a guy does a full force strike to her face or crushes her throat with a vice like grip.
I tend to doubt that a woman who joins the military would be that squeemish, but that is an assumption. Again, I am not saying an attack is a woman's fault. I am saying that a woman may be able to stop an attack if she is prepared. It is kind of like a country and military spending. Countries maintain a military to defend themselves, not necessarily to attack others. Self defense training is kind of like maintaining a military. It should be kept up to an effective level. Then, hopefully, you never have to use it.
It takes a strong woman to join the military. Then they are trained in combat. Yet, this horrible crime still occurs. I am not suggesting this is the victim's fault. It is always the attackers fault. It is sad that it is still occurring. One would think our military would have learned the lessons from a few years ago when they got in trouble for not doing enough to prosecute offenders of sexual assault. The article does not go into whether the crimes were even reporting. It was conducted by the VA for the purpose of getting a handle on and treating vets.
A question that comes to my mind is whether combat training is useful in stopping a sexual assault. Is the training they learn in the military effective at stopping an attack? If not, why not? It could be that a lot of these attacks occurred while a group of people were out at the bar and inebriated. This does not excuse the crime, but may provide a reason why someone was not effective in defense of themselves. If that is not the case, what type of combat training is necessary for a woman to defend herself?
I teach self defense. I enjoy teaching woman how to stop an attacker. I like to think that what I teach will work...but reading an article like the one listed above makes one wonder. What would truly be effective? A knife? A gun? A taser? It is challenging to teach women, who tend to be smaller and weaker than men, how to fend off an attack by someone who could be twice the size and four times as strong. The most important part is awareness and prevention. However, once an attack starts, viciousness and ruthlessness become critical.
Self defense is not for the squeemish. If there is any hesitation in gouging someone's eyes out, it could be fatal. A lot of people have a problem with this. I was teaching one woman how to break someone's grip on her wrist. It was only one session and I was holding very lightly, maybe 25%-50% at most. She never came back. I found out when she told a mutual friend that she believed no one who grab her that hard! And that was just a wrist grab. She will experience a rude awakening if a guy does a full force strike to her face or crushes her throat with a vice like grip.
I tend to doubt that a woman who joins the military would be that squeemish, but that is an assumption. Again, I am not saying an attack is a woman's fault. I am saying that a woman may be able to stop an attack if she is prepared. It is kind of like a country and military spending. Countries maintain a military to defend themselves, not necessarily to attack others. Self defense training is kind of like maintaining a military. It should be kept up to an effective level. Then, hopefully, you never have to use it.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Domestic Violence is a large chunk of the crime committed against women. Yes, there are case of women battering men in domestic situations, however, the numbers are significantly skewed the other way. I've heard a few different reasons why domestic abuse occurs, including that it's cultural, women cause men to become violent, men do not know how to calming handle situations resort to violence as their only option, etc. Some combination of these may contribute to different incidents of violence.
I tend to disagree with the notion that a woman causes the violence committed against her. The only time I know that a person has agreed to having violence committed against them is boxing and other contact sports and sado-masochism. Most domestic situations do not fit into one of those two situations. I also think someone would find it difficult to find scientific evidence to support that theory.
I do, however, think it is likely that men are generally not equipped to evaluate their own emotions to the point where they can resist violence. This is not an excuse. It is similar to saying that someone in America cannot get a job because they cannot read. Virtually everyone in America has an opportunity to learn at least the basics of reading and writing. To be ignorant of necessary information when the are many available options and incentives for learning that information is inexcusable.
Culture certainly plays a role. Groups of people who have hidden domestic violence, considering it a family affair, need to evolve. I respect many aspects of most cultures, however, as a species, we have learned that we should treat everyone with the same respect. That lesson has not filtered through to everyone, just as other lessons have not, but that just means that we should continue teaching it. Our jobs will not be done until there is no longer a need to teach this lesson.
As part of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I heard about this event which, if you live in the Chicago area, you may be interested in. Dominican University will be presenting a panel discussion on “Men’s Role in Ending Violence Against Women” on Thursday, October 9 at 7:00 p.m. in the Springer Suite of the Crown Library, 7900 W. Division Street, River Forest. For more information, click here: http://www.dom.edu/events-news/media-releases/2008-09/article_0007.html. For more information, contact Dr. Michelle VanNatta, assistant professor of sociology at Dominican University, at (708) 524-6035 or mvannatta@dom.edu.
If you know of other related events, feel free to post them in the comments section.
I tend to disagree with the notion that a woman causes the violence committed against her. The only time I know that a person has agreed to having violence committed against them is boxing and other contact sports and sado-masochism. Most domestic situations do not fit into one of those two situations. I also think someone would find it difficult to find scientific evidence to support that theory.
I do, however, think it is likely that men are generally not equipped to evaluate their own emotions to the point where they can resist violence. This is not an excuse. It is similar to saying that someone in America cannot get a job because they cannot read. Virtually everyone in America has an opportunity to learn at least the basics of reading and writing. To be ignorant of necessary information when the are many available options and incentives for learning that information is inexcusable.
Culture certainly plays a role. Groups of people who have hidden domestic violence, considering it a family affair, need to evolve. I respect many aspects of most cultures, however, as a species, we have learned that we should treat everyone with the same respect. That lesson has not filtered through to everyone, just as other lessons have not, but that just means that we should continue teaching it. Our jobs will not be done until there is no longer a need to teach this lesson.
As part of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I heard about this event which, if you live in the Chicago area, you may be interested in. Dominican University will be presenting a panel discussion on “Men’s Role in Ending Violence Against Women” on Thursday, October 9 at 7:00 p.m. in the Springer Suite of the Crown Library, 7900 W. Division Street, River Forest. For more information, click here: http://www.dom.edu/events-news/media-releases/2008-09/article_0007.html. For more information, contact Dr. Michelle VanNatta, assistant professor of sociology at Dominican University, at (708) 524-6035 or mvannatta@dom.edu.
If you know of other related events, feel free to post them in the comments section.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Female Genital Mutilation
The title sounds horrific, doesn’t it? If you’ve never heard of it, you might be wondering what it is. It is something that is done about 6,000 times a day (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75814.php) and involves one of four “procedures”. You can read about them here: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/. Basically, it is cutting a womans genital area to either remove the clitoris so a woman cannot experience pleasure during sex or sewing the vaginal opening closed so a woman cannot have sex until she is married, at which point she’ll have to endure another “procedure” to open the vagina back up. There is no medical reason to do any of them.
When I first heard about this, my thought was, “What the hell is wrong with some people??? Why on Earth would anyone want to do that???” Well, it is not a girls choice. Usually, these “procedures” are performed between the ages of birth to 15 years old. As far as why, again, there are a few reasons including religious, social, and cultural influencing factors (see WHO article referenced above).
All three can be summed up in one word: sexism. These are people who obviously consider women to be beneath men and at their whim. So, when someone in the U.S. tries to argue that women have it much better today than they did years ago, there is still a long way to do. When someone tries to argue that treating men and women differently isn’t bad and in fact a good thing, female genital mutilation is an example of how far that logic has been taken by some. When Hitler first got into power, everyone loved his ideas. A strong country, an ideal race of people with a good culture. Who wouldn’t want that? But as soon as you start to say one is better than another, that idea gets carried too far and a genocide begins.
In this case, the painful, physical mutilation of millions of infants and young girls.
If you are interested in doing something about it, check out the following, and other, websites and consider either donating or helping in other ways.
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/index.php
http://equalitynow.org/english/campaigns/fgm/fgm-campaign_en.html
When I first heard about this, my thought was, “What the hell is wrong with some people??? Why on Earth would anyone want to do that???” Well, it is not a girls choice. Usually, these “procedures” are performed between the ages of birth to 15 years old. As far as why, again, there are a few reasons including religious, social, and cultural influencing factors (see WHO article referenced above).
All three can be summed up in one word: sexism. These are people who obviously consider women to be beneath men and at their whim. So, when someone in the U.S. tries to argue that women have it much better today than they did years ago, there is still a long way to do. When someone tries to argue that treating men and women differently isn’t bad and in fact a good thing, female genital mutilation is an example of how far that logic has been taken by some. When Hitler first got into power, everyone loved his ideas. A strong country, an ideal race of people with a good culture. Who wouldn’t want that? But as soon as you start to say one is better than another, that idea gets carried too far and a genocide begins.
In this case, the painful, physical mutilation of millions of infants and young girls.
If you are interested in doing something about it, check out the following, and other, websites and consider either donating or helping in other ways.
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/index.php
http://equalitynow.org/english/campaigns/fgm/fgm-campaign_en.html
Monday, August 18, 2008
Emphasize boys and discount girls
The title of this post is a Chinese phrase “Zhongnan qingnu” that I had recently read about in the book “The Fortune Cookie Chronicles” (Jennifer 8. Lee, 2008). According to the author, it is a common idiom for the cultural phenomenon in China that is sadly only slightly unique. Traditionally, China has favored boys even in the law. For example, up until very recently, women were not allowed to inherit land. This has only changed because of the huge imbalance between boys and girls. Because of the law that families can only have one child, according to one article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/13/60minutes/main1496589.shtml), there are about 120 boys for every 100 girls, with one school having an imbalance of 150 to 100.
In addition to being extremely sexist, this will lead to many other problems. More unmarried men will likely lead to more crime. The article mentioned above talks about how more and more infant and young girls are being kidnapped and forced into marriage. This will no doubt lead to more violence against the women that are forced into these situations.
The big question is, how do you change a cultural? China is trying by providing some incentives for people to have girls. Changing laws will probably have some effect. In addition to the one mentioned above, another law makes it illegal for a woman to find out the sex of their child while still in the womb. Of course, this has simply led to many back alley ultrasounds, which I suppose is better than back alley abortions. Abortions are free in China.
One of the challenges in changing the culture now is that there are already many more men than women. I suppose the men, if they are rational, will see that it is only right that things be equalized in terms of treatment and birth rates. However, I have never known large groups of people to be rational. Therefore, what I expect is for the next 20 or more years to be very chaotic in terms of cultural changes. This may be similar in scope, and violence, to the cultural revolutions that Mao Zedong started in the 1960’s.
We shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)