Double Standard
Corporate America is breeding bad Americans…
The dog-eat-dog world of Corporate America is a typical example of what happens when you create an establishment whose only goal is to make money. This article seems to underline the problem with business employee evaluations based purely on a persons ability to make money:
How do people get ahead in the workplace? One way seems to be by making their subordinates miserable, according to a study released Friday.
In the study to be presented at a conference on management this weekend, almost two-thirds of the 240 participants in an online survey said the local workplace tyrant was either never censured or was promoted for domineering ways.
“The fact that 64.2 percent of the respondents indicated that either nothing at all or something positive happened to the bad leader is rather remarkable — remarkably disturbing,” wrote the study’s authors, Anthony Don Erickson, Ben Shaw and Zha Agabe of Bond University in Australia. -[Reuters]
It would appear that business entities appear to be held to a much looser standard of humanity that are individual human beings. As a business entity, they are often allowed to indulge in actions that would have been considered unethical, hostile, or downright violent had the same actions been taken by one person against another. All in the name of the Almighty Dollar.
The problem is that businesses are not lifeless entities. They are not run by automatons. They are run by living, breathing people. Every unethical or inhumane corporate decision is made by human beings, and allowing businesses to operate without regard for the needs of other human beings is the same as allowing the individuals running the company to operate above the laws of humanity.
It is no surprise then, that people who make money, even at the cost of others, are often rewarded and rise up in the ranks of corporate America, while those who try to act with the well being of others in mind are penalized. But we really need to consider the long term social cost of this way of thinking. If we create employees whose only goal is the acquisition of wealth, with no regard to the health and well being of their fellow man, will we not eventually end up with communities of these very same kind of people?
Is that the kind of America we really want to create?
Bad bosses get promoted, not punished? – [Reuters]
Is the battle of the sexes over? Ummm, I think not…
A recent study suggests that, contrary to traditional beliefs, both men and women enjoy sex for primarily the same reason:
After exhaustively compiling a list of the 237 reasons why people have sex, researchers found that young men and women get intimate for mostly the same motivations. It’s more about lust in the body than a love connection in the heart.
College-aged men and women agree on their top reasons for having sex – they were attracted to the person, they wanted to experience physical pleasure and “it feels good,” according to a peer-reviewed study in the August edition of Archives of Sexual Behavior. Twenty of the top 25 reasons given for having sex were the same for men and women.
Expressing love and showing affection were in the top 10 for both men and women, but they did take a back seat to the clear No. 1: “I was attracted to the person.”
“It’s refuted a lot of gender stereotypes … that men only want sex for the physical pleasure and women want love,” said University of Texas clinical psychology professor Cindy Meston, the study’s co-author. “That’s not what I came up with in my findings.”
Forget thinking that men are from Mars and women from Venus, “the more we look, the more we find similarity,” said Dr. Irwin Goldstein, director of sexual medicine at Alvarado Hospital in San Diego. Goldstein, who wasn’t part of Meston’s study, said the Texas research made a lot of sense and adds to growing evidence that the vaunted differences in the genders may only be among people with sexual problems. – [AP]
Well, as usual (I guess) somehow I didn’t find this study to be that helpful. It could just be me, but the results seemed to be a little obvious. Not to mention that the study seemed to cripple itself in the universality department.
The first issue I saw in the study was stated in the article. They were essentially studying college kids. And the vast majority of college age kids, both male and female, spend a great deal of time thinking about sex. Their primary motivation is fun, not marriage or settling down, etc. So of course, their reasons are going to primarily be lust driven. Strike one.
Next, even within the more sexually balanced middle-aged group, the claim to gender stereotypes may not particularly be culturally valid anymore. I happen to have known several men who were really pushovers, and women who were much, much worse than men in terms of sexual predation. (Think “Sex in the city.”) Strike two.
And last, but not least, even within the hormonally boosted college demographic you could still see gender differences in the attitudes towards sex, with men tending towards being more opportunistic, and women apparently doing so to please their partner. That kinda hints that the men/Mars women/Venus thing still isn’t entirely as baseless as they suggest. Strike 3. Out!
Perhaps we shouldn’t simply abandon the idea of men being from Mars and women being from Venus. Maybe we all just ought to remember that both Mars and Venus still occupy the same solar system…
Lawsuits: Gang violence deterrents? Or Prejudice?
I just read a troubling article regarding cities using lawsuits to pro-actively disrupt gang activity:
Fort Worth and San Francisco are among the latest to file lawsuits against gang members, asking courts for injunctions barring them from hanging out together on street corners, in cars or anywhere else in certain areas.
The injunctions are aimed at disrupting gang activity before it can escalate. They also give police legal reasons to stop and question gang members, who often are found with drugs or weapons, authorities said. In some cases, they don’t allow gang members to even talk to people passing in cars or to carry spray paint.
“It is another tool,” said Kevin Rousseau, a Tarrant County assistant prosecutor in Fort Worth, which recently filed its first civil injunction against a gang. “This is more of a proactive approach.”
But critics say such lawsuits go too far, limiting otherwise lawful activities and unfairly targeting minority youth.
“If you’re barring people from talking in the streets, it’s difficult to tell if they’re gang members or if they’re people discussing issues,” said Peter Bibring, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “And it’s all the more troubling because it doesn’t seem to be effective.” – [Yahoo/AP]
I find this turn of events troubling for a number of reasons. First it is a very dangerous thing for anyone to implement any kind of enforcement that violates an individuals rights, especially when they have yet to actually commit a crime. And re-purposing laws so that actions that are legal for the average citizen become illegal for a specific demographic is simply unethical.
These cities have, in effect, sued a demographic, without regard for either the innocence or guilt of any of the individual members of that demographic. They have surreptitiously made gangs illegal. And in doing so, they done little more than legitimize prejudice.
The ability to stop, search and detain a person without probable cause, and for no other reason than their age, race, or the color of their clothes, is unconstitutional. Plain and simple. The increasing willingness of American police forces and lawmakers to violate an individuals rights in the name of keeping the peace is becoming a common and disturbing trend nowadays, especially in The Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. The end does not justify the means.
It is wrong to apply laws differently depending on such things as race, stereotypes, clothes, age, etc. Creating second class citizens does not solve problems, only exacerbate them. History has taught us that any demographic unfairly treated, will bear no concern for the fair treatment of others. It simply creates a vicious cycle. It may appear to be a a good solution in the short term. But unfairly treated people have long memories, and as a long term strategy, it is a no-win.
Be very careful America. I see a very ugly pattern developing. At the rate we are going, we will soon all be prisoners, held captive by the illusion of freedom…
Cities sue gangs in bid to stop violence – [Yahoo/AP]
How Many Americans Would Pass American Citizenry 101?
I read an interesting article this morning about how a majority of Canadians would fail the Citizenship test required for immigrants to become Canadian citizens:
The Ipsos-Reid survey showed that 60 percent of Canadians would fail the test. A similar poll done in 1997 showed a failure rate of 45 percent.
“Canadians appear to be losing knowledge when it comes to the most basic questions about Canadian history, politics, culture and geography … (they) performed abysmally on some questions,” the firm said in a statement. – [Reuters]
In the midst of all of the hullabaloo about illegal immigration, I can’t help but ask myself how many American citizens would pass the test required for American Citizenry. Many Americans are very quick to point fingers and cry foul at immigrants, both legal and illegal. We complain about them taking our jobs, benefits, cultural differences, language issues, and so on, ad nauseam. And yet there are many “American Citizens” whom I believe, have less of a right to the resources and opportunities that our great nation provides than a good number of the immigrants that they decry on a daily basis.
What we should really asking ourselves is, what makes someone a true American citizen? Being born in the good old U.S. of A.? I dunno. Most of us so called “Americans” are actually immigrants. Yeah, yeah, I know some of you are thinking, “OK, now he’s going to start babbling about Native Americans and so on. Why does he have to bring up old stuff?”. I know. It’s a clichéd and corny reference. But there is a point. I think everyone knows that although being born here automatically makes you an American citizen, it doesn’t automatically make you a good or even a worthy citizen. So I think it’s hypocritical for us to sit here and talk about making it harder for other people to become citizens, when we ourselves did exactly naught to do so.
I’m not saying that we should allow random immigrants to cross our borders and gain citizenship in a free and unrestricted manner, but considering the size and productivity of the immigrant workforce we currently employ, illegally I might add, (which says a lot about us), and somehow manage to give benefits to, we may as well let them become legal citizens, start paying taxes, bearing civic responsibility, and contributing to the pool they have been benefiting from. After all, they aren’t going to suddenly all vanish just because they are illegal now are they? As I see it, It’s either have them stay in hiding and deplete our resources from the inside, or let them into the fold and let the system work the way it’s supposed to. Just a crazy thought…
Most Canadians would fail own citizenship test – [Reuters]
Double Standards for pot in Jakarta…
I just finished reading an interesting (actually I found it a somewhat humorous, but I’ll let you be the judge) article about the position of Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla on the use of Marijuana in Indonesia. He said (and I quote):
“It’s alright to use it as a food seasoning, but it should not be fully legalized,” – [Yahoo/Reuters]
Now is it just me, or does this sound a little half hearted? If it were illegal, shouldn’t it still be illegal to make curry with it? Or is curry a special case? Would you require a prescription to cook traditional style curry? And how about “Special” Brownies? AAARRGH!
But I guess smoking it is a special case that would be absolutely heinous… And should be punishable by death… You tell me.
Politician okays marijuana in food – [Yahoo/Reuters]
Log In
My Thoughts…
Blogroll
General Info
Phyreblades Blogs
Famous Last Words
The Time Machine
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Feb | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |||
Issues
Pick your Poison:
Easy Eavesdropping.
- Phyreblade on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- dreadrocksean on Objective vs Subjective Reporting
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- phyreblade on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…
- shamelesslyatheist on Giving relevance to the irrelevant…