Feminism

This is a dangerous topic. Say anything non-conformant about feminism and you'll be labelled a chauvinist. Therefore I feel the need to start with a disclaimer: For the record, without any reservation, I support equal opportunities and equal compensation for equal efforts.

Recently, I had a Heureka-moment related to the concept of "pink-collar occupations", or in Finnish, "naisvaltaiset alat", or simply, occupations where women are in a majority. The idea I had is to replace gender-words with some other identifier such as ethnicity or sexual preference. After all, given that gender-labels are legitimate descriptions of an occupation and practically all persons can be identified by both gender, ethnicity and sexual preference, then also ethnic- or sexual labels should also be legitimate. Consider therefore occupations where gays are in a majority. What thoughts and emotions does that concept induce in you? At least I feel pretty uncomfortable with the concept. "How dare you label an occupation as a "gay" occupation?" Or even better, think about occupations where /insert-your-preferred-ethnicity-here/ are in the majority, such as pool-care-takers. WTF? I get angry just be writing the sentence. "How dare you imply that pool-care-takers are mainly /insert-your-preferred-ethnicity-here/?"

How is it then somehow not-politically-incorrect (=politically accepted) to talk about pink-collar occupations?

How would I then go about discussing inequality in the work-place? Consider, for example the following ideas:

• I would much rather discuss the problem of companies hiring alpha-males for leading positions when they, according to evidence, are not the best ones for leadership positions. Since alpha-male characteristics are more likely to appear in males than females, then males appear more likely in leadership positions, thereby creating the appearance of gender-bias, when in fact it could just as well be a bias for the stereotypical alpha-male.
• I would also like to discuss why occupations dominated by alpha-male characters (corporate leaders, banking etc.) have higher average compensation in form of salaries and benefits? Conversely, why does care- and educational-occupations have lower wages than say, occupations within advertising, commerce and even engineering? After all, this distribution of wealth is not fair, judging by, for example (several other ways of judging also exist), utility and for the welfare of mankind.
• While engineering studies are marketed to females with success stories from other females, studies show that an average-female-story would be much more effective, since success stories create a impression that ladies need to be super-humans to be successful within engineering. So the problem is that engineering studies are not marketed in a realistic way, which should actually be worrying also from the male-perspective, because that leads to educating also such males to engineers who are not well-suited to be engineers. That is, males are tricked to become engineers even when that does not fit them.
• New studies show that young adult males nowadays have a desire to, or feel a societal pressure to "look good". That is, young adult males are pressured to exercise to get fit and invest time and money on clothing. In other words, young adult males are increasingly treated as objects of visual pleasure, similarly as ladies have been objectified for centuries. This means that females do not anymore have the monopolistic right to be victimized through objectification anymore, but it applies also to some males. That is, the problem is not objectification of females, but objectification itself.

The last point perhaps summarizes my idea. I think it would be time to apply Occam's razor to feminism; let us not talk about female problems, but democratically, let us talk about problems. In other words, I think the term "feminism" is discriminating in just the same way as some ethnic or sexual-preference terms are used as degrading adjectives. So let us stop talking about feminism and start talking about equality.

Conformative statements

I just generated a new concept which I will call "conformative statements". It is a form of argumentation which I've been observing for some time already, but whose function I managed to pin point only now. Before going to its definition, let me back track a bit.
I've had this recurring conversation with a number of friends of mine about the preference of indoor versus outdoor (rock)climbing. Usually the argument I hear is "indoor climbing is terrible", to which I emphatically disagree and I'm always tempted to start throwing my counter-arguments, which my friends undoubtedly have heard all too often already.
Now consider an alternative argument from my friend: "I hate indoor climbing". My reaction would be very different. I would be / I am emphatic, feel almost a bit sorry (because my friend is unable enjoy something I happen to enjoy the way I do). But it is an argument we both can agree on. He does not like indoor climbing. I agree.
So why do I get ever so slightly upset by the former argument; "indoor climbing is terrible". Why is it different from "I hate indoor climbing"? As you might guess, the former is what I call a conformative statement. It is a statement that begs for conformance, it contains the presupposition that I will agree. Since I admit to having difficulties in conforming to things whose motivations are not clear for me, I immediately get an uneasy feeling when someone uses a conformative argument on me.
If someone would say a generally accepted truth or value, such as "genocide is bad", then I have no trouble conforming. However, I do not see why anyone should accept conformance with values whose motivations are not clear. Worse, in this particular example, I do accept that my friend does not like indoor climbing, but I happen to think that it is a weakness, not an inherent feature. He would not be less happy, if he were able to enjoy indoor climbing. His conformative statement thus not only begs for conformance, but which would also be detrimental to my happiness should I happen to conform.

I have problems

Just made a fantastic discovery.  A discovery, which is by far bigger and better than your average discovery. It's good. Trust me. The discovery is that: "I have problems." It's wonderful.

That is a good punch-line, isn't it? But really, it truly is a good thing to have however counter-intuitive it is.

The truth behind this statement is actually rather obvious. Not the usual kind of obvious, but the in-your-face kind of obvious. The way it goes is this: Behind every problem there is a solution. The catch is that you need a problem, to be able to find a solution. Perhaps you already see the obvious conlusion, no? I'll spell it out for you: Without problems, you cannot find solutions. Innovations are solutions. Ergo, without problems there are no innovations.

Want to be innovative? Yes? Find yourself some problems!

Categorical imperative

<p dir=ltr>"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." </p>

I have for quite a while already lived by this philosophy, although admittedly, it is a difficult task. On one hand, I do think that this is the right thing to do. I mean, how could you do anything else? Do you really want to do something less than the best possible? Do you consciously want to avoid to do the best you would be able to do? Doing less than the best possible, is by definition less than good, or non-good, which its to say in colloquial terms, "bad". Do you want to do good or bad things? <br>
On the other hand, deciding what is the categorical imperative is a difficult task. The principle assumes that you know the right answers with certainty. How many things do you know with absolute certainty? I can't claim that I know many, yet we all have practical lives to live with an infinite amount of small decisions, we have to make choices even when we do not know the categorical imperative. For one, there are just too many choices that we could find the best possible choices to every one of them. But much worse, there are questions which land in the grey zone in between where no absolute rule can be defined. For example, consider the question of where to put the balance between freedom of speech and security of the individual. It is trivial to find examples where rigorous application of freedom of speech puts individuals in danger of life. Still, it seems clear that freedom of speech is a really, really important feature of civilized societies.
On a trivial level, how would you set the categorical imperative in the question of which route to take when walking to they office? The fastest, the nicest, the one where you might meet that nice person in whom you're interested in, the one which fits the weather, the one where the risk of getting mugged is lowest or the one with the fewest blue houses on the way? Claiming that you should choose the one that fits the situation best means you're avoiding their question. Or perhaps an even better, even more trivial question? What is the categorical imperative to which apple juice to drink in the morning? Supposing that the price, ecology, and taste is they same? It's just a too trivial a question that you would want to spend energy on finding the absolute answer, the categorical imperative to it. It's, like, who cares?
And that demonstrates the problem. In our everyday lives, we have just too many problems, too many questions that we could afford to spend the time to find the categorical imperative to each and every one of them. Conversely, demanding the categorical imperative to every choice, "which hand to use for opening the toilet door?", would paralyze us, make us unable to do the most simple tasks in life.
Perhaps the conclusion, the categorical imperative,  would then be that the mental effort should be saved for the important questions. Questions such as, "when to take up that difficult topic with your best friend, which is already hurting your relationship?" are the kinds of questions where you should find the categorical imperative and also act accordingly.

Re: Trial by Media

In response to "Trial by Media" on Professors Blog.

As a background, I have been reading de Noli's blog for quite some time with great interest and I both sympathize with Julian Assange and support the cause of Wikileaks. However, I have become increasingly disturbed by the "barking-at-the-forest" approach of de Noli, as a contrast to 1) trying to improve things and 2) trying to understanding the causes of the problems.

In general, I do not think any one person is evil, save for some extremely rare criminally insane individuals. No, I think all people try their best to do what ever they perceive as best for themselves and best for their community. More specifically, I do not think that Swedish journalists, police and politicians that de Noli writes about are evil. To the eyes of an outside observer, yes, their actions do seem deplorable, incomprehensible and outright evil, but that is a difference in perspective. I am as sure as I can be of anything, that each and every one of the journalists, police and politicians de Noli writes about are doing whatever they can for the best of their country and themselves.

For one, I do not think that framing these people as madmen, will do any good. When people are subjected to an outburst, when they are called idiots or when they are screamed at, usually they either respond the same way with an outburst, calling you the idiot or scream at you, or then they completely ignore you. I think I have observed both responses in conjunction to Professors Blogg and quite frequently at that. What I have not observed so frequently, are calm and objective arguments. I do however appreciate de Noli's efforts towards objectivity.

More importantly, how can it then be that these inherently good people act in ways that seem like idiocy or pure evil to us? That is the real question! How is it possible that these good people do things that seem abominable?

What I call for is to look at the thing from the perspective of your opponent. There must be some reason that makes the good people act in a way that looks bad to us. My first suggestion would be their frame of reference. Think of a journalist who has done his job conscientiously for the past 30 years. He has dug stories, he has written articles and he has learned to know a lot of people. It is not a conspiracy, nor an organized mafia, it is his friends and colleagues, the people he has known for all those years. He is the god-father of some of their children and after his good friend had died, he walked his daughter to the altar in his place. They live in Sweden, the doll-house of Europe, where everything is a bit prettier and nicer than anywhere else. They know that and they are kind of proud of that, even if they lull themselves into a bit of an illusion. Every system degenerates over time, so did Rome, so did the Inca, ancient Egypt and USA, and so did also Sweden.

When you are in that system, it is hard to see that you are in the system. Because of such a long time of stability, all your friends and colleagues think more or less the same way as you. It is not that they would try to make consensus, or to force unity. It is just that if there are no immediate big problems, then the easiest way is to not rock the boat and just follow the stream.

Enter Assange. You cannot but admit, initially, there were some legitimate concerns both with regard to Wikileaks as also with regard to his personal affairs. As far as I know, the personal affair concerns turned out to be widely exaggerated, but with regard to Wikileaks some legitimate ethical questions remain that deserve to be discussed. It is not necessarily that Wikileaks would be bad, but questions such as "What responsibilities should the media take for their publications?" are important questions. The media itself does not seem to be capable of asking that question, perhaps because it is not a good way to sell ads, but someone should be asking those questions.

In any case, these initial, legitimate concerns rocked the Swedish boat. As Wikileaks did not fit any existing category on any level, it was easier to either ignore it or dismiss it by pointing out the potential problems with it. It was then that Julian, by either an ill-timed accident, or due to overly protective US foreign services (according to who you want to believe), ran into his personal troubles and the whole case escalated.

I have to repeat, I do not think that any party operated with conscious evil intentions. Even if you choose to believe that CIA organized Julian's predicament, I do think that their intentions are highly patriotic and that the operatives themselves think they have done nothing wrong. Likewise, I think that the Swedish government did what they saw best. Their first reaction was not to get involved, since they trust the Swedish police. In the beginning, it was not an act of submission towards USA, because they honestly (still) believe that the Swedish system works. As time went by, the political cost of changing positions grew. Acting for Wikileaks would naturally be an action against USA, and since the politicians have long good relations with their US allies, that would be difficult not only a political level, but on a personal level. Much worse, changing positions now would break the illusion that Sweden is somehow better than others, an illusion in which the politicians and journalists still live. Say, if Marianne Ny would suddenly drop her efforts against Assange, then she would be the one who is rocking the boat in Sweden. She would be the one who says, "Yes, we shouldn't have done that.". She is in a catch-22 situation. She can't win whatever she does - either she has to admit failure or enters a fight she cannot win - so she does the lesser evil, "do what we've always done".

What I am trying to say is that it is not the people who we should blame and it is not an organized mafia that we should blame. The problem is systemic. The people are caught in a self-supporting and self-reinforcing system, which limits their perspective and causes them to act in ways that we cannot comprehend. Attacking the individuals in the system forces them on their defense and makes them cling on to the system more desperately. Our attacks thus reinforce the system - exactly the opposite of our intention!

The question remains, what is the most efficient way to solve the problem? Name calling obviously will not help, since people become defensive or they ignore you. Framing somebody as an evil person also does not help, if you would ever again want the help of that person. What goes around comes around. You call that journalist an idiot today, she'll call you an idiot tomorrow, with the only difference that she has a larger audience.

My first suggestion is to give "the bad guys" an easy way out. It is not often possible, but when you can give someone the option of disappearing from the scene without loosing his or her face, let them disappear. It could be, for example, that the Swedish police suddenly "discovers" a rule which causes any open cases regarding Assange to expire. That would give Marianne Ny a way out. She would not have to admit error. She would, while lamenting the outcome, be "forced" to drop the case.

The second approach, which is close to what de Noli has been trying to do, is to report facts consistently and passionately. Professors blogg does not lack in either, but where I have to disagree, is the tone. Pointing out absurdities does not require framing people as evil persons. Passion does not equal or warrant emotional reactions to attacks. I am afraid it is a very Swedish attitude, but I would call for a "lagom" (well-proportioned) intensity approach. Our objective, if we are to succeed, must be to understand our opponent. Only by understanding the people in the system, can we help them understand. Our objective should not be to win, because that requires that someone loses, but to find steps which improve upon the current.

Finally, I must admit that I have not done my homework by far as well as de Noli does. My comments do not reflect any specific incident or writing on Professors Blogg, but rather the general tone and impression I have.

I hope this helps us forward.

- Tom Bäckström

The writer is professor at University of Erlangen, Germany, but does not claim any academic expertise in any area related to this text. This text also does not in any way reflect the opinions of his current, former or future employers, but only his personal opinions. You are free to redistribute the text as-is, without modification, as long as reference to the original and this disclaimer are retained.

On Liberty - On Happiness

I am a Scandinavian and we, unlike the Americans, do not read John Stuart Mill as part of our general education. At least that is the image I have, as an outsider, of American education, but do correct me if I'm wrong. "On Liberty" is in any case a famous and central work of American political thinking, and since I thus had never read the work, the other day I thought that now would be a time as good as any to finally take a look into it. I must confess that I haven't come far on it yet, but it has already thoroughly impressed me. It is a very good writing and surprisingly current. It really deserves to be a classic. Simultaneously, it has raised a lot of thoughts and counter-arguments.

My first issue with Mill's treatment of liberty is that he treats liberty in a black and white manner. Mill asserts that maximal liberty is the goal, but that we need a government to constrain people from harming each other. That is, the goal of the government or society is not progress or happiness, but merely to prevent people from harming each other. The responsibility of personal progress is thus transferred completely to the individual. Suddenly I understand the philosophical origin of the American dogmatic individualism. The consequence that I do like is that this philosophy encourages or even forces people to take responsibility of their own life and does not allow people to live off the society. The problem is that this approach treats society the same way as western medicine treats people: by trying to remove illness, not by trying to reach health or happiness. Whereas it would be possible to design a society with the goal of reaching progress or happiness, Mill chooses to prefer a society which merely avoids ills. Simultaneously, I think it is obvious that all human culture is based on co-operation. All progress humanity has made, has appeared because we have specialized and thus become dependent on each other.
Still, it seems to have been always implicitly obvious that avoiding ills is not enough. Classic American quotes like "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" seem to confirm this. It is not about what the country can do for the individuals, but what the individuals can do for the common good. Naturally the element of the government protecting its citizens persists, since in the context of the quote the question was about protecting the citizens against a foreign military force, but that does not eliminate the common good aspect as a contrast to avoiding ill. Simultaneously it is interesting that such a central quote is also clearly against individualism and for socialism. The question is How can individuals contribute to the society?
In this context, it is also interesting to observer how Mill, already in the introduction, notes that there will always be those who think that the government should intervene less, and those that think it should intervene more. This problematic could not be more current as it seems that the republicans are today more dogmatic than ever about reducing government, while democrats try to look at the big picture and strive for progress. I feel that the problem is a consequence of Mill's philosophy, which takes liberty as an axiom, without further elaborating why liberty is important. Republicans accept that axiom as the ultimate objective without question, whereas democrats implicitly understand that we can achieve more than "just" liberty.
This leads to my main observation regarding the insufficiency of Mill's proposition. Mill only states that liberty is desirable, but fails to specify why liberty is preferable. Is liberty an ultimate goal in itself, which does not require further elaboration, or is liberty a proxy for some other fundamental objective? Choosing axioms is always a difficult question, since an axiom is by definition a truth accepted as obvious without argument. A good axiom can thus not be explained. Liberty, on the other hand, can be explained at least as a prerequisite for happiness. Happiness research has shown that people need to feel like they are in control of their lives in order to feel happy. It is not the only requirement for happiness, but it is important. Since liberty can be seen as a tool for reaching happiness, perhaps happiness is the ultimate goal? Personally, I do believe that happiness is the ultimate goal, but if you are not convinced, for the sake of argument, you can choose to see it as an hypothesis.
With the happiness-goal as an axiom, liberty becomes merely a subordinate tool for reaching that goal. It is an important tool - that is why it has so long been confused for the ultimate goal - and that is why the strict pursuit of liberty leads to so much problems. I have not yet found any similar arguments why the pursuit of happiness would lead to problems. The happiness-goals thus looks at least like a valid axiom.
A consequence is that the dogmatic treatment of liberty should be softened. It is not the ultimate goal. Simultaneously, observe that for happiness, strictly speaking, we do not need freedom, but only a feeling of freedom. In other words, an illusion of freedom is sufficient for happiness. Ethically, a Matrix-like world with an illusion of freedom within absolute control is naturally extremely problematic, but demonstrates how liberty cannot be treated strictly. The film Matrix does, though, demonstrate how problematic a freedom based on illusion is.
Another observation is that people need only an feeling of liberty, but I think that after some level of liberty, more liberty does not improve happiness any more. That is, there is a threshold level, after which people feel in control and after which increased liberty does not bring added improvements. In contrast, happiness is a measure were more is always better. I do not think, however, that absolute happiness is possible, because, for example, overcoming challenges is a good way to achieve happiness, but impossible without the risk of failure. It this an eternal goal, where improvement is always possible.
Still, I do have to admit that happiness is a problematic concept. For one, happiness cannot be easily defined or measured. But in that sense, happiness is no different from liberty. An unambiguous definition of liberty as the absence of restrictions requires specification of which restrictions we are liberated from - an impossible task. In addition, it will be difficult to decide how to weigh the happiness of the majority over the minority. But again, this is a problem shared with the concept of liberty; how important is the liberty of the majority in comparison to the liberty of the minority? Mill solves this by asserting that people should be free only insofar as that their liberty does not harm other people. In the same spirit, we could require that the pursuit of happiness is allowed only when it does not diminish the happiness of other people.