I'd been planning an article examining why Australia has done relatively little with regard to the genocide of the Rohingya.
I was going to look at the excuse of trying to encourage burma's (I refuse to use "Myanmar" until that nation is a true democracy, and I don't consider burma has earned the right to have its name capitalised) transition to democracy, but the military have arranged a facade of democracy where they control key pieces and excluded Aung San Suu Kyi (whose reputation is now in tatters) to the extent that a recent ranking of how democratic nations are puts burma at 118 (out of 167), in the "authoritarian" regime range. So . . . if the aim is to encourage burma to become a true democracy, a lot of work remains to be done, and, at the very least, there is a case to consider that the world and burma are still at the stage of saying "no, burma, that's not democracy".
I was also going to examine those in bureaucracy who may have a misplaced pride in being focused only on the "interests" of Australia - interests being as defined by the elites in power. The problems with that are (a) it is in everyone's interest to stop genocide (which is why there is often such strong reluctance to admit the word genocide applies, with euphemisms such as "acts of genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" being used by those who, basically, just don't want to have to do anything), and (b) we're talking about an already declared genocide (see here, here, here, and here - and burma has a history of this, having first driven the Rohingya out when it invaded their lands back in 1785 [and then conveniently "forgetting" that those returning after were, indeed, returning to land the burmese had driven them out of], and currently continuing their wars and persecutions against other minorities in burma), so, morally, those who want to focus on "interests" and ignore the moral or ethical aspects of their disdain for the Rohingya and their suffering are treading perilously close to the stance of the similarly focused bureaucrats who enabled the Holocaust (they're NOT there - yet, but they're drifting uncomfortably close).
I was also going to examine the drivers affecting the moral compass of politicians - which I could simplify as being basically whichever way the voters' noses are pointed, but that trite-ism (to coin a word) does a disservice to the many genuine politicians we have (some of whom I have personally met, and have the greatest respect for). Those politicians are, however, operating in a political reality that has been manipulated by powerful forces, including a couple of decades of intellectual mediocrity, the power of conservative media/oligarchs, and the apparent indifference and cynicism on the part of voters, and there is also now a misperception that what the elites define as "enlightened self-interest" (meaning whatever aligns most with maintaining the oligarch's wealth and power) governs what voters care about. That is not only misleading, it is active deception - in other words, a lie.
What voters care about includes things like the future of their children, the wellbeing of their friends (family of choice) and family, and their lifestyle. Voters are not idiots, so, when properly informed, most are perfectly capable of understanding the significance of issues such as climate change (counter arguments about things like job security need to be listened to and properly considered by those doing to explaining, by the way), why the war on drugs is a failure, and why instability and repression in nations (such as Malaya in the 1950s, East Timor in the last few decades of the 20th Century, and North Korea throughout most of its history) can be a threat to others.
I was going to do all that . . . but the key point is actually hidden in a previous paragraph: indifference.
Samantha Power, in her book "A Problem From Hell", discusses the "lack of imagination" that had a role in several US instances of non-action, with those receiving reports in "official-ese" not properly comprehending the disaster that they were reading about. That can, indeed, be a problem, in my opinion, but I think it can also be overplayed - like the misogynists I encountered in engineering in the 80s and 90s who refused to provide extra toilets for women, despite knowing that queues were longer, because they didn't know exactly how many extra to provide, or those who abuse guides such as clarifying "preferred" pronouns to highlight the trans history of people when they know full well what the person's "preferred" ( a more accurate description is "correct") pronouns are, or those who think "empowerment" is reason to avoid critiquing faulty systems (such as the nature of work, or workplace discrimination), as well as the examples cited above of those who use details and words as excuses to avoid taking action (I have long suspected that such fear of doing something, for whatever reason [and there are several], is behind the focus on "better" measurement in some branches of engineering and local government).
The truth is, at least as far as the genocide of the Rohingya is concerned, that brave journalists and survivors have made what is happening abundantly clear. There is no vagueness, "fog of war" or other excuse for claiming "we didn't know" - we even have the benefit of 70 years of hindsight from the Holocaust, and more than a century from the Armenian Genocide that led Lemkin to develop the word "genocide" and lobby for the Genocide Convention. There are even organisations which report on these matters, such as Genocide Watch, and, to a less specific extent, the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect!
The fatuous excuses that nothing can be done - well and truly debunked in Ms Power's aforementioned book - also hold no water here. As far as Australia is concerned, for example, apart from continuing to aid the incredibly generous but overwhelmed Bangladesh, we can send a strong signal of disapproval by cutting our military aid to burma, as other nations have done.
(As far as the argument that it enables communication between Australia's military and burma's military goes, I am not confident in the ability of Australia's military, given the misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and animal cruelty of some of its [generally lower rank] members and its past enabling of Indonesian abuses, to adequately portray a message of disapproval of human rights violations - that is hard enough for anyone who has to work with any abuser.)
Politicians, already under pressure on a wide range of major issues, won't take action unless Australian voters show they care about the Rohingya - and, sadly, most of us don't. There are a wide of explanations that can be given (the challenge of caring for strangers, being overwhelmed by the pressures of life [which I can certainly relate to, given the illness of a close family member combined with job pressures], and so on), but, at the end of the day, it is indifference to terrible suffering that is causing the insipidness of Australia's approach to the still continuing genocide of the Rohingya.
And that leaves me heart broken.
Wednesday, 23 January 2019
Tuesday, 15 January 2019
Competition is not the only way
One of the philosophies which pervades business (and society) is that competition is good for a whole range of reasons, including that it brings out the best in people.
That is wrong - or, at the very least, a dangerous simplification.
A few year's ago, my nation's female swimming team started getting exceptionally good results - much better than the men's team. The reason for this was that they had a sensible coach who stopped the needling (that is how many women see it) and changed to mutual encouragement, and it resulted in the women's team becoming more successful.
The drive for competition in the workplace, both within each company and against other companies, is an expression of stereotypical patriarchy, and harms women, many men, and the economy.
Some men and some women "benefit" from that - they find it stimulating, and they are often the sort of so-called "go-getter" that claws their way to the top of the corporate ladder . . . and then, cursed by their lack of human understanding, inflicts what works for them on everyone else.
I have probably half a book's worth of thoughts on this - including the costs to society of companies developing structures based on winning work, and hiring people who, far from being technical experts, or in addition to that in some cases, are experts at "beating others", which adds overhead costs and inhibits the functioning of companies, but that is for a different time. (On a slightly different note, I have also thoughts on the costs of support staff, such as accounting, insisting those doing the actual work apportion some of their mental energy to using systems that convenience the support staff and inconvenience the actual workers.)
This is not a new problem - I've seen it throughout my career, and reflects the effect of patriarchy: I would love to see an enquiry into the costs and benefits of this matter, but I doubt anyone would be able to be comprehensive enough.
Incidentally, I want to note that there are benefits from a market - one of our clients received a much lower, better bid for a plant because we prepared a flexible (what is termed "performance based") specification for them, but that is flexibility, not competition.
That is wrong - or, at the very least, a dangerous simplification.
A few year's ago, my nation's female swimming team started getting exceptionally good results - much better than the men's team. The reason for this was that they had a sensible coach who stopped the needling (that is how many women see it) and changed to mutual encouragement, and it resulted in the women's team becoming more successful.
The drive for competition in the workplace, both within each company and against other companies, is an expression of stereotypical patriarchy, and harms women, many men, and the economy.
Some men and some women "benefit" from that - they find it stimulating, and they are often the sort of so-called "go-getter" that claws their way to the top of the corporate ladder . . . and then, cursed by their lack of human understanding, inflicts what works for them on everyone else.
I have probably half a book's worth of thoughts on this - including the costs to society of companies developing structures based on winning work, and hiring people who, far from being technical experts, or in addition to that in some cases, are experts at "beating others", which adds overhead costs and inhibits the functioning of companies, but that is for a different time. (On a slightly different note, I have also thoughts on the costs of support staff, such as accounting, insisting those doing the actual work apportion some of their mental energy to using systems that convenience the support staff and inconvenience the actual workers.)
This is not a new problem - I've seen it throughout my career, and reflects the effect of patriarchy: I would love to see an enquiry into the costs and benefits of this matter, but I doubt anyone would be able to be comprehensive enough.
Incidentally, I want to note that there are benefits from a market - one of our clients received a much lower, better bid for a plant because we prepared a flexible (what is termed "performance based") specification for them, but that is flexibility, not competition.
Saturday, 5 January 2019
The waves of trans/gender diverse people
This is not an attempt to define a formal system, and I have no doubt others have thought of something similar or even better: I just wanted to get my thoughts on this on record.
What I'm thinking of as the "First Wave" of trans* / Gender Diverse (I'll use TGD - the trans* stands for transsexual/transgender: you can find more on the TGV website at here) are those who existed in history up until the time in the 20th Century when medical intervention was developed. Their experiences covered the whole range from good to bad, depending on the biases and thinking of the cultures they lived in.
These experiences included some extremely long cross episodes of what could be described as cross dressing, but probably was accurately - in modern parlance pre-operative post-transition living. (I might add some of those tales at a future date, especially if I can find a book I was given as a present which I think is called "Transgender Warriors" - I'm having a tidy up SIGH )
The Second Wave of TGD people are probably those who lived in the early era of medical intervention / support. The focus there was on being invisible aka undetectable: what TGD people refer to as "passing". Again, there are stories from this era, and I hope some of those from my home state are made public at some stage, as the work we did in the late 90s depended greatly on the work of those from this era.
The consciousness raising of the 60s and 70s, and the overlapping various human rights (often referred to as civil rights, I understand, in the USA) started to have an effect, and the Third Wave started to emerge in the 70s and 80s, marked by a decreased emphasis on passing as understanding grew that:
Again, later developments, and the improvement of human rights, depends greatly on the work on the courageous TGD activists of this era.
However, many TGD people who transitioned during this era - including me - were left with various forms of trauma (often referred to as PTSD, including by doctors) as a result of the hateful actions of the bigots.
Incidentally, as a digression, during this era, in the 80s, homosexuality was legalised in my home state. Apart from the human rights aspects of that campaign, one of the aims was to remove gay and lesbian people from the roles that older G and L people felt they had to live - so social stereotypes and constraints applied even to the fringes of pre-60s society (and still do, in socially backward nations, today).
I also have to say that the problem of insufficient awareness and discrimination applied within the LGBTI world as well - particularly against bisexual (by some gay and lesbian people) and intersex people (by some TGD people), but also against (by some gay and lesbian people, and some pseudo-feminists) and within the TGD world (F2M and M2F).
We now come to the Fourth Wave, which is where children (I knew I was female at age four - and anyone who claims children don't know should be locked up for stupidity) start to express their true gender identity at an early age, with acceptance and support, including the invaluable puberty blockers.
This is where we start to move closer towards what gender should be, but there are still problems - the main one being that only a few places on the world have become advanced enough for that: most of the people everywhere else are too backward.
Things will eventually change for the better, particularly with the better aspects of modern communication, travel, activism and law-making (in particular, I am looking forward to the removal of current constraints on correcting Birth Certificates in both my home state and the backward state I was born in) ... but the flip side of that is that more socially backward people can come into more progressive societies, and be at the very least a jarring note. I'm thinking of some personal experiences I've had, but also some of the far right wing extremist speakers from the USA who have tried to come here.
Well, those are just a few roughly put down notes. Here are a few other links that might be of interest:
What I'm thinking of as the "First Wave" of trans* / Gender Diverse (I'll use TGD - the trans* stands for transsexual/transgender: you can find more on the TGV website at here) are those who existed in history up until the time in the 20th Century when medical intervention was developed. Their experiences covered the whole range from good to bad, depending on the biases and thinking of the cultures they lived in.
These experiences included some extremely long cross episodes of what could be described as cross dressing, but probably was accurately - in modern parlance pre-operative post-transition living. (I might add some of those tales at a future date, especially if I can find a book I was given as a present which I think is called "Transgender Warriors" - I'm having a tidy up SIGH )
The Second Wave of TGD people are probably those who lived in the early era of medical intervention / support. The focus there was on being invisible aka undetectable: what TGD people refer to as "passing". Again, there are stories from this era, and I hope some of those from my home state are made public at some stage, as the work we did in the late 90s depended greatly on the work of those from this era.
The consciousness raising of the 60s and 70s, and the overlapping various human rights (often referred to as civil rights, I understand, in the USA) started to have an effect, and the Third Wave started to emerge in the 70s and 80s, marked by a decreased emphasis on passing as understanding grew that:
(a) TRUE gender does not fit into two widely separated binary, nor even a binary spectrum (even if one allowed for the reality that people's position can change with time and circumstances), andThese movements were spurred by the viciousness of reactionary people, including police abuses in various nations.
(b) the problem of bigotry belongs to the bigot, not the person the bigotry was being aimed at.
Again, later developments, and the improvement of human rights, depends greatly on the work on the courageous TGD activists of this era.
However, many TGD people who transitioned during this era - including me - were left with various forms of trauma (often referred to as PTSD, including by doctors) as a result of the hateful actions of the bigots.
Incidentally, as a digression, during this era, in the 80s, homosexuality was legalised in my home state. Apart from the human rights aspects of that campaign, one of the aims was to remove gay and lesbian people from the roles that older G and L people felt they had to live - so social stereotypes and constraints applied even to the fringes of pre-60s society (and still do, in socially backward nations, today).
I also have to say that the problem of insufficient awareness and discrimination applied within the LGBTI world as well - particularly against bisexual (by some gay and lesbian people) and intersex people (by some TGD people), but also against (by some gay and lesbian people, and some pseudo-feminists) and within the TGD world (F2M and M2F).
We now come to the Fourth Wave, which is where children (I knew I was female at age four - and anyone who claims children don't know should be locked up for stupidity) start to express their true gender identity at an early age, with acceptance and support, including the invaluable puberty blockers.
This is where we start to move closer towards what gender should be, but there are still problems - the main one being that only a few places on the world have become advanced enough for that: most of the people everywhere else are too backward.
Things will eventually change for the better, particularly with the better aspects of modern communication, travel, activism and law-making (in particular, I am looking forward to the removal of current constraints on correcting Birth Certificates in both my home state and the backward state I was born in) ... but the flip side of that is that more socially backward people can come into more progressive societies, and be at the very least a jarring note. I'm thinking of some personal experiences I've had, but also some of the far right wing extremist speakers from the USA who have tried to come here.
Well, those are just a few roughly put down notes. Here are a few other links that might be of interest:
- http://bilerico.lgbtqnation.com/2008/02/transgender_history_trans_expression_in.php;
- https://www.glaad.org/blog/timeline-look-back-history-transgender-visibility; and
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transgender_history&oldid=876671164 (which tends to make the all too common error of conflating same sex attraction with being TGD).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)