Bullied

Another yesterday news described the sudden death of a 10 year old. Under the constant agony of children too limited to understand that words in fact hurt, the young child had committed suicide.

Some of the first defense by adults is to blame the victim. The victim was not tough enough. The victim should have been taught to fight back. The victim should have been taught to meet violence with violence, and to equal harsh words with their own. Why the need to ‘toughen’ the victim with this idiocy-a world where we are expected to be cruel and nasty? Why? It’s with this understanding that the world isn’t nice and life isn’t fair, therefore only the ‘weak minded’ may slip away as the ‘strong willed’ succeed. This is life and this is the first lesson.

What, just why should there be a need to defend at all? Not just a child, as this issue extends well into adulthood- and we wonder how young bullies are shaped and made. We are always taught to, or even expected to allow the bully to win over our minds and confidence by engaging them in their own struggle. If we lose, yet live we proved our worth still, even if it may escalate the bully’s intentions. If we win, we proved our worth, may even expose the cowardice of the bully. If we fail to meet the pointless challenge to the bully’s ego it is then society that hounds us for not defending our worth. And it is pointless to engage as with this understanding we allow the bully to control the situations of either a life scarred or of sudden death. We then make it seem as if the bully is in the ‘right’, while all others unable to or not willing to engage are in the ‘wrong’.

I mean I understand the pointless matter of this challenge all too well. Growing up not understanding why I, quiet and only concerned with myself, would find harsh words lashed at me. Or to hear of false assumptions about my character used as a weapon. Or in some cases, being physically ridiculed in front of witnesses to test my patience. I had only lost my patience once. This extends from memories of an 8 year old to that of 21 year old in college, in a communal situation. For the life of me I could not understand why I was tested, essentially. Comments made about my appearance, lack of engagement in social settings, etc, etc. I had to be told that it’s a game we play to disturb the peace of an individual so that their worth is proved. Again, only once did I engage. He kicked me and laughed so I kicked him back, madly. All that I learned is that I was furious that my peace was disturbed and I didn’t feel any better being just as equally cruel and nasty. He had won me over, and I played his game. All other altercations I ignored with my face quenched or to show that I was slightly annoyed but no longer listening. At some point I had allowed them to talk, to laugh and to point at me until this became ‘boring’ to them. Left alone only for a moment, for another person or group to test me yet again. Until now no longer.

I was never driven to suicide or self harm, but depression did take a hold of me during these times. Not that their words and actions hurt me, just that I was more so hurt that this is how they were towards someone seemingly different. And hurt by that I must endure this treatment to be taught a lesson, or to be told ‘this is simply how people are so get on board and play along or become left.’ For others like myself we may move along and endure, others play, and some others ‘fail to defend’.

We shouldn’t have to allow our world to be met and decided by that of a bully. We should not have to defend, to allow the peace of an individual to be disturbed. This too should be taught and engrained into our children so that they may forever silence the adult bully. We should not have to do anything other than to counsel the bully, to source the root of their unwillingness to live peacefully-as the problem lies and first begin with that person.

Advertisements

Allegations

Coming out from a decade ago to incidents that have occurred recently, both women and men are coming forward with stories of sexual assault, harassment and abuse. The fingers are pointed at our upper class-the celebrities and businessmen, as well as our politicians.

As I can only assume that most of our population in the U.S. understand and accept the  sincerity of the accusers of all ages and positions; however, there are still those skeptical. These aren’t simply men who fail to comprehend the truthfulness of the victims statements-despite their age, there are women too that make similar comments. As in,

Why now? (Why not when the incident of abuse or assault occurred did these women or then girls did not come forward to the authorities?)

Here we go again. (These women are simply buying attention from the media.)

Why does it matter now? (As in I believe these women, however fail to understand the purpose of their accusations now as they proved themselves successful or beneficiaries in their careers.)

These are simply allegations, no charges have been made and the media/social media is not a courtroom. (We do not know for sure if these situations are truthful or not. In any case we have a court and rule of law that should properly investigate, judge then rule on these incidences. A trial by media causing the lost of jobs is unjustified.)

With these common statements and questions by both, some, men and women is an admission to the overall question, really a statement: Why now?

Any ‘now’ or moment in time takes courage to speak of. As I have had women confess to me about their brother, their pastor, father, uncle, neighbor, friend or teacher. The time is irrelevant, what matter is the act and how it deeply silences the victim. As one woman confessed to me that her brother had molested her for years, but she did not want to alarm her dad. Her dad, a single father providing financial necessities as he worked all hours of the day and often leaving the children home alone. However, she said after some years when she finally confessed what had happened to her, her father believed her. Her brother then later confessed, confessed of other children he had silenced and sought help.

I witnessed poetry spoken by women who were raped by their fathers and how she still deals with the emotional aspect. Still she is haunted by memories. A few came forward right after the act, others had come forward years later. The point again not being about time it is about courage. And in stating ‘courage’ is not to belittle the people that have faced abuse of some kind, yet have not come forward. You know this isn’t about comparison of who has the guts to say something its simply that it takes courage to do so.

In asking that question, too, is a form of silencing. As I remember in my studies about accusations of rape and assault in high school, I remember a statement made by either a teacher or by the textbook. It was somewhere along the lines of how our society become especially protective of men as women began to come forward about their assault, abuse and the like. Yes some were proven to be false, as our media reporting on these claims have found a couple to be false. However it shouldn’t negate the truthfulness of all other women, but it does some times. So we, as in our society, automatically assume the innocence of the man before the woman because of the need to protect, the need to silence from harm of knowing. Why now? Well the victims are not only breaking the silence of the act, they have to break the silence placed by our society.

For example, a male is victim of sexual harassment by women. The first question by the immature is, well is he gay, a homosexual? Why would a man reject attention from a woman? I mean that is desired in a heterosexual male, regardless of age. However it is not. And to deny the unwanted advances of a woman is no indication of his sexuality, only his ownership of his body. However, the immature understands this point only if the male victim is sexually harassed by men. Therefore, he is free to speak without scrutiny, but the first question asked again is did the male victim evoke violence towards him? If not, again well is he gay? A way to shun men based on homophobia, a repulsion of feminism, is another form of silencing a victim. A silence placed by our society of how men are ‘suppose’ to act and react to such situations.

By this question, ‘Why now?’, the skeptics are admitting to the fault of the accused and as well admitting to their own encouragement of silencing the victims. Though without this desire to self reflect on their comments made is also admitting the need to silence harm from knowing.

 

 

Trump America

Around this time of the year of last year I was in great disbelief. Donald Trump was running to become president of the United States of America, to run as a Republican. My skepticism concerned his sincerity first, or perhaps his personality as a celebrity business man proved to be to much of a joke. This sentiment remained true for all others I spoke to whenever the subject arise. IS he a serious presidential candidate?

Well the people, meaning my rural hometown largely Christian and conservative loved him. As I live in the suburbs of Atlanta, certainly the middle class Christian and conservatives loved him and still do. As I move further to the mountains of my state I see the giant Trump flags and billboards raised proudly alongside crosses and confederate flags on private property. Certainly he is loved and my state by a large margin thought he was, still is, serious about the presidency. T America

Alright, then he is something new, something different and not bound by rules of etiquette as our country has witnessed in the past. I will honestly admit this is why I doubted his sincerity. But, he is our president now and more so this year I have become silent on the political debates and divide under his name. I wanted to read the reactions to his decisions, how he made decisions. I wanted to hear his reactions to common issues that divide and rebuild U.S. America’s trust and compassion for one another. You know, to sit back and to observe without further judgement or concern to how well he leads a country rather than a business.

That’s why he was a highly considered. I remember the chimes of conservatives demanding a business man, a man like themselves to finally become their voice. There they have it, a man given access to wealth through privileged means. He went on to turn a million dollars into the unnumbered fortune he owns now. A successful business man in the real estate industry and as well known for his show ‘The Apprentice’. However, he had stated that his presidency will not become about him and how well the government controls people. Instead, he promised a country ran by and for the citizens of the United States.

Today’s ceremony, however, has a very special meaning because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have bore the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered but the jobs left and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes starting right here and right now, because this moment is your moment.

It belongs to you.

2017, Inauguration Speech of President Donald J. Trump

This statement made by our current president has been my greatest concern. How is he addressing the concerns of citizens? How is building the transference of power from government and politicians to the citizens? In those two questions, how well is he ensuring a pathway to a government for and by the people?

A few of our major concerns include: Healthcare, Jobs, and Student Loans.

Healthcare: There are disagreements on how individuals should or should not pay. However, the goal on such a divided issue should be to find a compromise. And to that to listen to the people, and address accordingly. So far the goals to ‘Repeal and Replace Obamacare’ has been bent and focused to upend a previous administration proposal and act. Not at all about addressing which provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act worked well and what others should be revised or thrown out altogether. And as comments on conservative talk radio and additional comments made during the voting process of the new failed proposal, the people simply wish for a  bipartisan compromise.

Jobs: Our nation has become increasingly a service based economy. This means that jobs prospects for people are typically in the service industry as the manufacturing jobs are shipped over seas, outsourced. This change in the economy has affected those like my father that depended on manufacturing jobs for decades. As well this change in the economy as made it difficult for young males that were typically the workers of these industries. As it shows more young males are being out paced by young females in terms of education and job prospect. As well, an effect on towns and cities that depended on manufacturing as the center thriving point of their respective economies have declined.  Based on President Donald Trump’s tax reform, he aims to reduce corporate taxes as a means to allow manufacturers back into the States again. The “biggest winners will be the everyday American workers,” he added. In this quest include the conversation about wages as not only taxes are of major concern by corporations. There are regulations, wages, insurance, etc. that are major business concerns in providing U.S. citizens with viable jobs. Therefore, if President Trump aims to provide jobs for U.S. citizens, to bring back the old economy, he is admitting to benefit the businesses first before the people.

Student Loans: Our nation is shackled by an increasing debt of young college students and graduates who are to become the future of the middle class U.S. America. Already unable to find employment in their respective fields or even remotely similar, they rely heavily on the service industry. In doing so, jobs that pay barely minimum wage make for paying off thousands dollar amount in debt difficult and really impossible in the near future. For those that do pay struggle to spend money more freely and to purchase rather than to rent- or to live for free with relatives. So far the solutions are about reductions to payment based on income, though the concern still remains.

In order for power to be transferred, first the concerns of the people must be addressed, placed into action and met. It’s only been nearly a year and he has so far addressed these few major concerns at least. Therefore, based on his first year performance he has not achieved the approval rating high enough to indicate that the people are witnessing a pathway to change.

His supporters and voters certainly approve of him, congratulating him on achievements made. As it seems, most citizens are asking, what is there to congratulate him for exactly? His supporters will say that he his making a pathway with his proposals, and orders. On the contrary, he has not.

However, this is only nearly a year and in the next year to the fourth one may we better compare and judge for election time.

Censorship of ‘Freedom of Speech’

In Summary

In light of recent events, the question of  free speech in public spaces that are not tolerated by the greater public-speech indicating intolerance of certain groups of people- is in question for review. Already the ACLU has considered to change its policies regarding protecting the rights of those rallying, protesting, or marching with the active presences of firearm weapons. There are those within the greater public asking whether hate speech should be given a platform. Again, already there are companies censoring known hate groups and their various media sources. However, there are concerns about what groups will be censored and why. As the civil rights groups and companies are taking action to ban the platforms of documented white supremacist and nationalist, are they to censor just those well known hate groups or all others as well? The concerns of the public include the presence of Black Lives Matter movement participants and supporters, as well as Antifa gaining traction in the media as of lately. The association and concern being that black supremacist and the militant nature of the latter group are cause for censorship and public condemning as well. There is even a petition going to consider Antifa a terrorist organization. In light of this President Donald Trump has condemned both sides as racist and as thugs, though in only naming the white supremacist and nationalist groups. He labeled the non-white racists and thugs as ‘other hate groups’.

Here the questions are begged: Is hate speech free speech, or should it be considered for equal protection under the U.S. Constitutional law? Then what about the ‘other hate groups’ not traditionally known or condemned as regularly alongside white hate groups. Should they be censored as well?


In Regards to the Free Speech Clause

As it has been interpreted and determined, free speech is protected speech regardless if the speech is accepted by the public-minor or by the majority. Free speech is a protected right, so long as violence is not incited. This has already been decided by key court cases as follows:

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444. A KKK clansman during a public rally in Ohio made a speech to determine a goal or action toward groups of people not specified. The court ruled that it is protected free speech so long as a call for violence is not mentioned, though not prohibited if such speech is likely to incite violence.

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397. Gregory Johnson protest against former President Reagan by desecrating the U.S. American flag. The court ruled that it is protected free speech to express opinions that are in disagreement with the public-minor or by the majority. And that the public taking offense is not a ground to either limit or to prohibit such speech.


Hate Groups

White Supremacist and nationalist organizations/groups are well known U.S. American hate groups. However, there exist ‘other hate groups’ not at all named specifically as they are unknown majorly. Here are some of the following white and black supremacist and nationalist groups that are considered hate groups:

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center there are nearly 1,000 active hate groups within the United States. The hate map provided in this link will reveal their location and, as well, providing the option to filter through all of those mentioned.

  • Alternative Right (Alt-Right)
  • KKK
  • Neo-Nazis
  • Nation of Islam
  • New Black Panther Party for Self Defense
  • War on The Horizon
  • Neo-Confederate

New Questions on Hatred

Hate speech will remain as protected speech, so long as violence is not cited or spoken by the representatives of the group. This right to speak is given to all, including those aforementioned ‘other’ hate groups listed. This means, so long as direct violence is not spoken or incited there exist no violation against U.S. Constitution and state laws.

However, the public is concerned about whether the presence of firearms, or other materials that may cause to incite violence- should be considered as protected speech still. Or as seen in Charlottesville, white supremacist and nationalist carrying firearms in their protest rally, while the Antifa groups carried bats and other materials in their counter-protest.

The debate among the public becomes petty as one differentiates the presences of a firearm being more so threatening than a person carrying a bat. The greater point being on either side of the debate is that violence was still incited with the mere presence of something militant, something hateful.ap_17222529170751

The question asked, then, should the mere presence that causes offense, which then may cause to incite violence should be permitted and protected by law?

As some others may state in the interpretation of Second Amendment rights- that the mere presence of a firearm (may include bats) is not a cause to incite violence. However, as the various laws may state about the presence of a firearm-that the person with the right to open carry, or to conceal and carry must be aware of the perception that they pose.

In addition, the public is concerned about corporate censorship in light of recent events. For instance, Facebook taking down some white nationalist pages. Or Pandora censoring hate music, usually white power music is cited and labeled as hate music. Or Google, taking down hate websites and blog sites. The reason supported by some of the public, being that it is not right to give such people a platform whereby they are to influence and to gather followers of the impressionable.

The question begs why are corporations, in this case tech industries in the business of online media, allowed to censor one form of content, yet not another similar? Then why are corporations allowed to censor at all?

As this article seems to suggest that censorship is relative to the political concerns of the state or individuals that filter and petition for the ban. As it seems that business as well have their own terms and conditions regarding freedom of expression, and so determines what is or is not allowed. Another example, Facebook censoring breast feeding mothers-classification of nudity.

Public or state petition to censor some content can be justified according to the respective state and federal laws. However, in light of recent events, as the petition in this case, to censor one form of known hatred over another is not just. A censorship of all hate group’s media sources should be the course of action. Though not to include the freedom of information to know of and to learn about them.

Too Little, Too Late

President Donald Trump’s approval rating has reached an all time low-at 34% as of August 2017. The poll conducted by Gallup was a survey of 1,500 people- before the recent racial controversy present in the news.

After the recent news I can only read the following introduction of every other sentence and/or paragraph of a comment “too little, too late”. The criticism about his response is that it was too late that he has condemned white supremacist and other white nationalist. It was a major criticism during the 2016 presidential elections that the racism espoused by some of his followers was never dealt with properly. As well, the criticism comes after his seemingly late response, since he has time to watch popular television shows then to comment thereafter in the characterized display of his behaviors as the President. ‘It is a little too late’, the common consensus I have gathered.

Is this a fair criticism of his response, in time, considering that he recently made a response about the evil nature of racism? The event occurred a couple of days ago, he is only to comment now, days later. In comparison to former President Obamas’ speeches on similar incidents of controversy, I say the criticism are similar about timing. Both are criticized by those that oppose them for similar or equal prejudice perceptions of ‘doing a good job of representing our nation’. Some others, though they may despise President Trump, state ‘well at least he said something to not condone the thoughts, behaviors by racist’.

In reference to ‘too little’. President Trump did not say ‘too little’. In what he had stated was written down, displayed on a teleprompter, and seemingly rehearsed. ‘It did not seem like him’ according to those that oppose him outright. Once a president has loss the trust and perhaps a feel of being genuine, there goes the support. The public are in critic in how timely, the public is in criticism of what is stated.

Again, in comparison, are the comments fair? Once again, in comparison to former President Obama speeches, I will state that the comments are still similar or the same.


How does a president of the United States actually unite the nation? As I am too young to have experienced many former presidents. Though I was aware of former President Bush and his criticism as a child, then President Obama’s criticism as a teenager and young adult. I have yet to witness a president that dispels the division, unites the nation in times of dire circumstances and controversy.

How does one unite the nation? When the people who vote and voice their opinion are so divided that their criticism of one another, in opposition, are petty? That their criticism of a president is bound by party devotion, almost like a children’s club. In a time that it is needed most to bridge the gap, not to polarize, none are able to do so…

Thus the sentiment is reflected in their approval ratings. How then can the public judge any president that they have so elected, well a matter of discussion of how we elect them, as being a poor performer?

Nuked

Waging war to achieve a mark upon history as the greatest nation ever to kill the most people ever, over an issue that no one would have ever thought was in need of a lesson.

You’ll See. Fire and Fury.

The call to wage war is still so primitive in nature. A cause to lose lives, both innocent or guilty; and those that are willing or involuntary participating in the act to fire at will to become forever scarred. For what purpose exactly, other than to avenge honor?

The Bush, The Clinton and The Obama allowed [them] to get away with everything.

All of this call to arms, the bigger the better. The strongest, most deadliest bomb one could master to achieve built and built again, as if one was not already damaging enough by simply existing. The matter now is only time and to call a bluff. The matter now is to call attention from the greater enemy determined by Commander and Chief long before the election date.

We will teach them a lesson.

And what lesson may the be in particular? That our leaders may willingly take away our lives to prove honor and blind patriotism. And no we are not the fortunate one’s-that song again about Vietnam. We may never see your sons and daughters enter battle over something senseless and inconsiderate. Hopefully the greater voting public may not be tricked into praising such dishonorable tactic to shift focus and attention from what matters in a peaceful, working society.

We are in need of affordable health care, however it may be compromised one day.

We are in need of affordable and quality housing. We are need of healthy solutions to our food alternatives; in need of better water supply; in need of a fair and just system; in need of a fairer wage; in need of funds for education not student loans; in need of relief of all other stresses causing a faction within our nation. Not bombs; a Korean… a Chinese person has never corrupted our system and caused stress onto our livelihoods.

We are in need of construction and unification-not dismay, rations, or a cause to keep the country on edge.

Public Bigotry and The Outraged

Concerning recent news of crime of another country or city, or the crimes committed by an individual of another culture or demographic- why must the public assume ‘all’ are at fault? Whether the media is to discuss India and its rape victims, Chicago and its murder rates; or Muslim men found guilty of sex trafficking, white person found to be racially insensitive in a debate, etc.. The presumption is always ‘all’, not a few and those individuals that have committed the crimes as individuals. No it is always, almost always, public bigotry and outrage attributing the cause to a collective rather than to the individual(s) or the perpetrators.

If a white person exhibits racial insensitivity then it is confirmation that all white people are racist. Or that this individual is a representation of their group-that being white America (a monolithic phrase attributed).

If a Muslim extremist decides a path to a rewarding heaven is by destruction of the livelihoods of others it is then Muslims as a whole that are barbaric in nature. Never the individual easily impressionable, and easily forgetful in the worth of self and humanity.

If there is a man obsessed with power, or one that expresses his insecurities and sickness aggressively on the innocent not consenting, the public assumes that it is men generally. Men are not to be trusted as they are all potential rapist, abusers or a danger waiting to happen.

These few examples are of major complaints that are read and heard throughout the news today, yesterday and tomorrow. To assume that ‘all’ are the case for danger, a reason for distrust rather than to aim at those that commit their crimes.

The underlying thought here is the obsession with assuming a collective understanding of how humans function in society. With the presumption that we all exist in our respective monolith, rather than as individuals first. The sudden urge to accuse the singular characteristic as the definition of all others similar-without consideration of the diversity that exist in what is thought to be sameness.

I am referring to terms such as ‘white America’. A collective, a monolith-that actually exist with distinctive identities and cultures. Though I’m referring to that white kid in class being assessed by the bitter, yet equally ignorant classmate. This kids heritage is assumed to be that of slave owners, though he may not have had any. This kid’s background of poverty is not related to the oppression or subjugation of others. A finger is pointed at him by the equally bitter and ignorant as the reason for the greater crimes committed by individuals, again, not related to him. However, since this white kid uttered something racially insensitive in class the argument then is about the racism, like his own, persisting in white America. An issue that harms the rest.

I’m referring to that comment made by Margaret and the other following made further down by John. A news story about men who appear not quite white and not quite black, yet they appear nothing like a Christian either. “A group of Muslim men”, they both snort and sneer. The news headlining that all men in the photo provided were charged with raping and kidnapping several young girls and women. It’s a common story of sex trafficking gaining interest among the media reporting something ‘new’ and forgotten. No one else may convince Margaret or John that all Muslim men are not deviant barbarians. No one may convince them-whether calmly in a thoughtful retort; or a call to shame through either mocking or carrying on back and forth in anger. Their thoughts are indeed ignorant and problematic, yet the comment thread has not gained a single light of awakening. “It is my opinion and I have a right to it”, as each reply or will eventually state. What do they say, then, when the Christian rapes and destroys the livelihood of others? Their thought is one of deflection. That  is an act of someone in-Christ like and that person exist as an individual; therefore not Christian. As to assume so would include both as having probability of committing a similar crime.

Lastly, I’m referring to those that believe a culture exist where men are free to rape without consequences. And that rape is a monopoly, held primarily among men-all men with the potential and intention to rape. “Not all men” is a phrase to specify the issue as an individual crime, whether grouped or not. The rebuttal then is that this phrase is offensive as it allows men thinking of self, to not consider the greater cause by the commonality of the victims perpetrators. Include ‘race’ and ‘religion’ to see how this topic becomes complicated. Talk about rape culture and black men and see raised concerns over the constant acquisition of young black men historically and presently accused of such a crime. It is then individual if one is black, to avoid racial insensitivities.

Why is it ‘all’ rather than a few or those individuals that have committed the crime in particular? Not much has changed with these continuing discussions of the same news, though with different details. Those that point a finger are set within their opinions, a wall built of continued anger and distrust. Nothing has been accomplished in argument assuming crime is associated to the groups most distrusted. No common understanding has been formed as such people wish to point and categorize.

From Mars, From Venus

A Google employee was fired yesterday amid outrage over his controversial statement about the differences between men and women in the tech field. The news summary highlighted the comment about ‘biological differences’ being the cause, the reason for the lack of women in STEM related fields. His comment also, carefully claimed that the comment was not meant to upset the cause for diversity in the workplace. Only that there are biological differences that give reasons for the discrepancies in the real-world demographics as related to tech industries.

The public is outraged and in debate!

Both men and women affirming that there are differences between males and females. Concerning the greater physical strength of a male compared to that of a woman. This much is true, however, what does physical strength have to do with using acquired knowledge of mathematics and software engineering-that requires years of study and brain power? As well,  both cited that males and females have differing interest because one thinks more deeply than the other. To the surprise of other commenters, a woman had stated that men think more deeply than women, since women are able to not think as much. Why, she said? Women are better able to multi-task whereas men need to concentrate more so on a single task before moving onto the next. There was an episode somewhere on popular television afternoon shows that attempted to prove this assumption: women are better able to multitask than men. However, are they better able to multitask because they are women or are they better able due to practice? The examples given on the popular television afternoon shows are housewives versus their husbands. More importantly, concerning the tech field in this case, does software engineering require a great deal of multi-tasking? If not, why is this mundane detail included in the attempt to confirm biological differences as the reason for the lack of diversity in the tech field?

Others liken ‘race’ as being the same ordeal with sex concerning the discrepancies in demographics of an occupation. There were a few that stated that black men are more dominate in football and basketball because of genetics. In reference to professional sports yes there is a dominate commonality in both basketball and football. However, does the commenter recognize that perhaps exposure to those sports in particular-or one’s environment in celebrating those two major sports more so than others-has something to do with the common interest? If simply genetics were the cause for black males being so great athletically, then why only those two major sports? Were black men specifically bred for those sports or are they only great due to exposure within their background since childhood? So on and so forth questioning why is biological differences claimed as a justification for the lack of diversity or the cause of a predominance of one demographic over another in a particular occupation?

Simply put, some people are not great in making arguments that are void of logic and contemporary empirical evidence.

Within the debate, women who happened to be software engineers, mathematicians of some kind or simply have an interest in STEM related fields chimed in. They took to their keyboards to comment on the anecdotal evidence of a few women internalizing sexism. Others took to list their qualifications to speak on the behalf of all women in STEM. Though, more importantly, they voiced themselves as women, the rarity, in STEM related fields. Their concern was addressed by others that disagreed with those ‘not great in making arguments’ as well. There are no biological differences between men and women that causes fewer women to pursue STEM related fields. However, what has been proven through empirical research is that there are sociological differences that causes more men to pursue STEM related fields, while discouraging women.

What is meant by sociological differences?

This simply means that how males and females, boys and girls, are raised in a society determines the outcomes of their interest. As well, this greatly depends on the environment, resources and anything else related that determines the interest(s) held within a society. And by society is referring to you and me, we are the people that determines the behaviors, the norms, the culture, the activities and other aspects and concerns within a society. This is all relative to the period in which we are referring to, and the history of the people that is being referred.

For example, at one period nursing was a male dominated field. Contrasted tot today, nursing is female dominated and often contributed to biological differences as being the cause of this discrepancy in demographics. I just made a point here. Today, biological differences are attributed to the cause of women being more predominate in nursing occupation, however, in centuries past men were predominate in nursing [or something similar in name]. What was the reason given then compared to today to excuse the lack of one gender? I’m regarding to a period in which “biological differences” meant women were so inferior to men that their place was not meant in places determined by men to be more of a masculine pursuit than others.

I may go further back in time. Agriculture, farming was once considered a female endeavor, while the men hunt. Though as the technology became more advanced and farming more complex, men assumed the role of being the farmer, while abandoning the hunter/gather lifestyle. This is true concerning the number of female teachers as compared to male teachers today. At one period men were the teachers, and boys were the students. Overtime, as centuries of activism called for the equal access to education systems and resources, we now see that there are more female teachers and more female students-the higher one may pursue in education.

The point here being that in each example given about nursing, agriculture and teaching was never about actual differences in biology- that made one sex more suited for an occupation. Instead this sentence here restates the topic:

“I’m referring to a period in which ‘biological differences’ meant women were so inferior to men that their place was not meant in places determined by men to be more of a masculine pursuit than others.”

That sentence is referring to the changes in social norms and the assumption of a task as determined by a man. As similarly compared to date, a change in social norms and the assumption of a task as determined by you and me. We determine whether girls are more likely to choose social work over astronomy. We determine whether boys are to become a doctor, rather than a nurse. We determine that STEM related fields are to be dominated by men because of the assumption that math and other related fields is best suited for males based, again, on a social norm or prejudice.

It’s the individual’s interest, but environment and society are major factors too.

Others within the debate will say that perhaps there is a difference not due to biology per se, though due to an individual’s personal interest. In that they state women are less likely to pursue STEM related fields as it requires [empirical] logical derivations, where men are less inclined towards socially inclined work. And by that they meant most girls simply like the color pink, whereas most boys like the color blue. Here I ask, how does one know of their interest if they have yet to have been exposed within their environment of varied interest? Here I state, we are inclined towards certain behaviors and interest still due to our nurture, rather than nature. For instance, how does a boy like most boys know that they like the color blue if they have never seen it? As relating to occupation, how does a girl know she prefers math if she is constantly encouraged to seek socially inclined task deemed more feminine? He does not know that he likes the color blue until exposed. As she does not know her preference since she is discouraged from one pursuit.

The greater question here: how are we to determine what boys and girls are more inclined to like or dislike, to pursue or to not pursue, when we do not raise them under equal terms?

The most important initiative of our time is equal access and equal terms. We are largely unaware of what an individual may like or dislike, without influences by society. We are not knowing what boys and girls would pursue if given the chance to become exposed to varied interest and pursuits equally. However, we do know that our interest and pursuits are heavily influenced by society and by exposure. What are the initiatives again? To reveal more women in the roles of STEM. Or to encourage programs that focuses on girls wanting to pursue STEM related fields as adults. In our time we are introducing them to an occupation.

That is all that is required to witness an increase in a demographic within a particular field. It’s not a simple matter of disinterest of the individual as, again, our interest are determined by societal prejudices and what we may be exposed to within our environments. It’s not even a matter of biology, as there is not a single DNA sequence that determines what we have determined and created within our society.

Woes of Womanhood

Woes of Womanhood
In the news today was yesterday news, about another country. Today BBC re-reported about at 10-year-old girl raped and now pregnant. The parents unknowing of the cause, and unknowing of their child’s term. They instead pacified her dark reality that her belly is growing due to a stone.
I sit here to read through the comments of concerned people, male and female, around the world. Those in defense of their country and others condemning the savagery of an act- not tolerated within more developed nations. Though this fact does gloss over that rape and forced pregnancy are a common occurrence around the world. Yes, rape and forced pregnancies are more likely to occur in some places more than others, but the point remains that it is occurs. And for it to happen to someone so young and innocent, though it is a matter of concern regardless of age and sex as well, is truly devastating.
The woes of being a woman.
She is told to be the backbone of the family dynamic. She is the house wife, the care giver, the cook and the mother treated as the same-a domestic animal; if not respected in some countries, and different cultural places. In some countries and places, around the world, this demand to become a domestic animal is introduced so young. At the age of 12 years-old she is a ‘woman’ without reaching womanhood. She is expected to be a mother though she is just a child herself. At the age of 9 years old she is told that her place is not outside, unless her culture demands all hands in the fields. Her place is in the kitchen or at the dinner table, mat or floor, her place is here. Her purpose is to serve and to be selfless while doing so. She is then taught to be the voiceless, compliant, master of her husband’s home.
Regarding sex she is not given any power or consideration that she too may enjoy pleasure, not pain. In some counties and places the power of sex is given to a male, who is taught to allow his desires to roam and to partake in several trials. She, then, is only allowed to be nonresistant. This too is true in more developed nations. Where the fault of her not consenting is within question of what she had worn that night or how much she had had to drink. In other cultures it is how tempting she may have been, so passively, to reveal her wrist. By this way women are taught that sex is power and that is what is given to the other sex. Then must we forget that women may enjoy sex too! She may be labeled a slut, a hoe in the process of her demanding attention as men demand attention. Or she simply enjoys the act of pleasure with her mate, preferably one that is respectful of her consent. In all what is forgotten through critic and debate, is that women enjoy pleasure.
These are a couple of vague explanations of some negative occurrences in life that impact a woman. No, as it impacts one it also impacts all. Whether we are to experience the negatives or not as individuals, we too understand the demands and dangers of it all becoming a possibility. And for others it is a significant chance of reality as they skirt through life in their environment always cautious of their surroundings.
And what is difficult to fathom here is how a child must forget being a child to experience these woes of womanhood. At 10 years old to experience a traumatic event, then to bring new life into this cycle of hurt. No, a ‘stone’ sits within her belly. What a curious way to explain the rape-as it cannot be described any other way-into her body, her mind as she carries this ‘stone’. For how long or how much longer she may think. How will this ‘stone’ may be removed? A natural cause, one by surgery or medicine? One could only imagine the difficult situation of either depending on the health resources available to her.
I can only imagine how she must feel, as her awareness of the world outside of child’s play is now stark. I’m not imaging her as herself, since a picture will never be provided. Instead I’m imaging her in different faces and facial features. Where her skin is brown, dark or white. Whether she has shoes on her feet or scrapes of cloth wrapped around, or even a sandal. The country where the rape occurred and where this child may live is not the concern so much, though only for her access to health resources. The skin color, genetic makeup of the predator, the rapist is not a concern here. The concern lies with innocence. The concern lies with a direct violation of a body. As it is something all too common in all places.

It Is So…Poetic

I’m anticipating to write an extended essay about the issues most concerning black Americans and their communities. The subjects are typically those concerns of the poor [i.e. poverty, education, crime, police officers, etc.] and I aim to discuss why that primary focus is problematic too. So I’m gathering a collection of books, typically those that are of the popular canon of ‘black thought’ on such subject matters. Or rather the accepted authority on this subject matter in opposition to my own alternative thoughts. As I gather books I read to find the key points and topics that are related to this extended essay.

Yesterday I decided to read the most recommended and awarded text of this date: Between the World and Me authored by Ta-Nehisi Coates. Actually I skimmed through the text, as it is rather short and can easily be done, and found that I was not impressed. Do not become mistaken here, I skim then I read a book first. The initial captivation among the pages are what confirms my need to purchase, to read, then to recommend to others. I can only read of what I have skimmed if it is profound or simply interesting. I’ve found neither adjectives are appropriate for this book. Perhaps, as all others, being poetic with their ‘blackness’ may captivate an audience that are the same and those that are white Americans and liberal-minded. However that is all and nothing else.

Of course it was written in a time where police homicides of black Americans took the nation by storm. People are emotional, calling it the greatest crime against black American males from years past to this date. Though emotional, basically an appeals to emotions, the statistical data proves otherwise. Black American males are more likely a victim of intraracial crime than they are to be a victim of interracial crime or to be killed by a police officer. As well, white Americans, Latino Americans, and Native Americans are largely ignored whenever the discussion of police killings surfaces on mainstream media. The majority killed police officers this year and last year alone have been white Americans. However, it is more profound if we discuss the statistics based on groups or ‘per rate’. Still in doing so we largely ignore that Native Americans are effected more so than black Americans. That is what I mean that it is an emotional appeal and one used tirelessly in the discussion of ‘black thought’-the center of attention ignoring the plights of all others.

There is something about ‘black thought’ that always needs to be poetic and to appeal to emotions. Or to over exaggerate a claim and to assume a collective mindset on all issues, whether all black Americans face them equally or at all. I do not find this common tendency in almost every essay, or every book about issues concerning [some] black Americans, profound or interesting. I too have studied black American history, U.S. history, the history of me and my being here. I enjoy it and continue to read. Though I do not appropriate the pain of my ancestors as that is insulting compared to my far more privileged life and life of freedom. Though I grew up in a rural area I never assume that poverty and the issues that become of those existing in urban areas are similar to my own. Poverty in rural areas is different compared to poverty in urban areas and I cannot falsely assume to relate to those that have an entirely different experience. Or what I am saying here, I refrain from using black Americans as a collective whenever discussing police shootings and killings and all other issues. That would be false to do so, and to give a false impression to others about the experiences of black Americans as individuals. As well it is simply an appeals to emotions to do so. I can discuss my experiences without included the entirety of black Americans who may have or usually have not experienced the same life. And I can do so without the poetic rhyme.

In writing this future extended essay I have to keep an open mind. To include Coates and other like him that all write in a rather similar manner, I must understand their thoughts. Why is it a common way to speak of issues pertaining to some black Americans this way? Why do they always assume a collective experience extending to all black Americans? For instance, his text in referring to the police killing of Eric Garner: “And destruction is merely the superlative form of a dominion whose prerogatives include friskings, detainings…All of this is common to black people. And all of this is old for black people. No one is held responsible.” A collective experience and notion assumed to be the thoughts and concerns, even the experiences of all. To the last statement, why is it common to make a claim based on limited observation; an assumption without facts? I remember around the time Michael Brown was killed, the tension had continued ’til December where I read that ‘police officers are never held accountable’. I retorted with, well it depends on the circumstances of the event and the evidence found. Since within that same month a local news source reported a police officer sentenced to time in prison for his crime against a black woman. Unfortunately I do not remember the details to that particular news story, but to make a ‘never’ claim on the basis of limited observation is quite common. So I ask ‘why’. To ask is to read, and that requires me to read their thoughts.

So, I’m looking forward to reading those differences in thought processing. In doing so I will provide a proper book review of each book I am thinking to include for my extended essay.