In the much touted book Rich Dad Poor Dad -- which has also received quite a bit of criticism over factual errors (see here and here) -- Robert Kiosaki puts forth the importance of understanding cash flow. In essence, it means that the financial state of the individual can be viewed as multiple pools of money connected by pipes. The employer's pocket feeding into the individual's pocket, which in turn feeds the mortgage, the utility bills, et cetera. In order to be wealthy, one must understand that plumbing.
This is not a financial blog, but I wonder what we might have concluded had we applied similar reasoning to the penitentiary system in the United States. Consider the pools of the American people: pre-high-school, high-school, college students, working professionals, the unemployed, criminals at large, prison inmates.
Criminal history, depending on the offence may remain on the ex-inmate for seven years or longer, virtually precluding him or her from landing a decent job. A glass ceiling over impoverished communities becomes a pipe feeding from the pool of the prison inmates back into itself. Throw in some suction from high-school into the criminal and prison pools, as well as weak economy which is sure to pump some people from the working professional pool into the prison system as well and we get one ugly picture.
The U.S. incarceration rate is comparable to that of the Soviet union during the reign of Joseph Stalin.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
"Rape culture" or "Sexual anarchy?"
Today, I want to rant about a, shall we say, interesting article by Jeremy Egerer "The Irrational Modern Woman, Sexual Anarchy and 'Rape Culture.'"
Although the exact message of the piece is a bit amorphous, the author seems to assert a certain dichotomy, an either-or situation faced by a modern woman of the Western world.
What dichotomy? Well, looks like there is more than one, which is the part that the author could have made clearer. Let's see:
"She demands liberty for all women to portray themselves as sexual objects and then complains when objectified by random men on the street ... She wants men to defend her against lewd sexual advances and then derides men for using terms such as 'slut' while she accepts them."
What exactly does that mean? I can but speculate, but I shall try. Cannot ask the author. Or, perhaps, I can ask the spoiled, insufferable modern gal herself? What is it you want, dear lady? Do you want to adhere to the dress code of a catholic school, perhaps even wear a nijab? Or do you want to put up with whoops and insults of intoxicated morons driving by?
It's not like they'd find a way to insult just about anyone on the sidewalk -- except, perhaps, a police officer or a group of sinister male teenagers. If only you presented yourself appropriately, those guys would have been the epitome of chivalry and gentlemanhood. See what you have reduced them to?
Do you want your dad/mom/priest to make decisions about your sexual behavior? No? Would you rather leave it to a rapist? No again? Who, then? Who is it that you want to be in charge of your vagina? You are "driving every sensible male into a state of confusion." Mr. Egerer certainly sounds confused.
All right, all right, I may have exaggerated. In fact, reason has glimpsed through the clouds of Mr. Egerer's affliction.
"It may be argued," he says, "that the defining factor of 'rape culture' concerns the woman's choice, that her consent alone determines whether or not sexual advance is proper."
Indeed, dear sir. Indeed. It may very well be argued. But, alas, it's must have been too cloudy in there, for in the very next sentence we read:
"... when every woman has a different preference, and all is possible, how may men be held morally accountable for woman's defense?"
Meaning, some women don't like their most intimate decision to be overridden by strangers, but some others, apparently, do. "And any man with any sense of morality -- or even simply a brain -- is rightfully frustrated." I am so sorry, sir. You have my condolences.