When's "Buy more Day"?

"Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon."

- Winston Churchill

Today is Buy Nothing Day. To celebrate, I'm going to buy some stuff. Because, you see, buy nothing day irritates me. It irritates me for practical reasons, it irritates me for philosophical reasons. To a degree, my concerns are quite rational, but I will admit to some illogic as well, insofar as it is largely the proponents of BND who bother me more than the concept itself. So let me address my concerns under those two headings: practical and principled.

Practical: Guess what guys? If you stick fastidiously to buying nothing over the course of today, it makes no difference. None. Because not only are you in an incredibly slim minority of people who actually adhere to the concept, but ultimately your shopping patterns don't change. You're still going to buy just as much stuff, you'll just buy more tomorrow. You can't go without food, and you won't go without the consumer goods that you want. BND is like those one-day gas boycotts that get suggested every now and again, where people hope to "send a message to the big gas companies" by not filling up their car one day: if a handful of people boycott gas stations for a day, then fill up the next day, the companies won't feel it. Ditto for BND.

Principled: I wholeheartedly agree with some of the points that AdBusters (the progenitors of BND) make. I think we have become an overly-consumeristic, wasteful society. It is sad and shocking that 20% of the world's population consumes 80% of its resources. We are causing massive environmental damage in our insatiable quest for more stuff, and that stuff often gets in the way of family, friends and actually experiencing life. But BND, and its proponents, go further. The undercurrent is that any consumerism is bad. You shouldn't care at all about things, you shouldn't want objects, just peace, happiness and friends. Bullshit. I enjoy the time I spend on the internet, and its ability to keep me connected to those friends, be they across the street or on the other side of the planet. So should I feel guilty about wanting a computer? I enjoy movies and some television shows-should I feel guilty about wanting a TV, a DVD player and a nice sound system? What about my iPod-am I a bad person because I like to listen to music on the go? That's ultimately what is insinuated by BND and its most fervent followers: capitalism=bad, consumerism=bad.

Furthermore, many go further. I've actually heard people, in the pursuit of BND, say that this is a model for how we should always operate. These people (and admittedly my undergrad was full of uber-hippies) actually espoused a return to the barter system. The barter system! You know, that thing we got rid of, because it's seriously flawed? The system that only ever works when there's a mutual and symbiotic needs arrangement between two parties? Yeah, that barter system. Forget international trade, forget a common unit of currency, we'll just trade for everything. The best part is that these selfsame people were the ones most actively pushing for the government to reduce tuition. Now I think education should be free, and I think the government should fully fund it for those qualified to attend. But unlike the BND fanatics, I understand how that can happen. The way you get a government to fund something is to have a good social policy in place, and a robust economy to support its investments. The government gets its money from taxes: income tax, sales tax and business tax. If nobody's buying anything, nobody is getting paid, so say goodbye to income tax. Plus, since there are no money-based sales, au revoir to sales tax. And of course, those businesses are no longer earning money, so farewell my good friend business tax. So, no money for the government; I guess they'll just trade the professors some apples in exchange for their teaching. Idealism is great, but when it's not balanced with a sense of reality, you end up looking like a raving loony.

Capitalism has some serious flaws, and unfettered consumerism is bad. We live in a nation consumed and oft-crippled by credit card debt and we're polluting the planet to fulfill our unquenchable thirst for more. But one of the realities of a free market is that it shows very clearly what people want. Wanting things is part of human nature; we measure standard of living not just by our health and education, but by our creature comforts and amenities. These can never replace human interaction in our lives, but they can augment it, and I'm sick and tired of being made to feel guilty because I want a fast computer and a big-screen TV one day. As soon as Visa ups my credit limit...

"A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want."

-Milton Friedman

Not everyone should go to university

Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything one learned in school.

-Albert Einstein

(This is another opinion piece I've written for Student Direct)

I pay a lot for my tuition. I paid a lot for my undergrad tuition in Canada. University is an expensive proposition in many parts of the world, and it shouldn’t be. University should be free to everyone who is good enough to partake, and can benefit from the experience. The problem is, at some point we assumed that those conditions applied to everyone. And they never have.

The UK government has a stated goal of 50% university enrollment. On the surface this seems like a great suggestion; after all, an educated society is a thriving one. Education really is the silver bullet that can cure a myriad of social ills. The problem is that such a goal is untenable in a world where the cost of university, be it borne by the government or the individual, is as high as it is in this world. Simply put, professors and equipment are expensive, and the more of them you need to hire and buy, respectively, the more that university bill will grow.

Let’s put it simply: imagine you have enough money in the national budget to pay the entirety of 100,000 student’s tuition. You admit 100,000 students and none of them pays a penny for the education itself; maybe you even subsidise housing, though I suppose free beer legislation shall forever remain a fantasy. Now, increase that number-admit 200,000 students. All of a sudden, the budget strains; say goodbye to subsidised housing, and say hello to tuition fees.

The first danger of this is obvious: when there is a financial cost involved with university, some people simply won’t be able to afford it. Even though the commensurate increase in potential earnings will compensate for the costs in the long-run (in most cases), the up-front cost can be crippling. Bursaries, scholarships and student loans can help, but when money is involved, there will inevitably be some people who simply cannot afford to go. Every qualified, capable student who cannot attend university is a lost opportunity and a loss to society.

The knock-on effects of such a policy, however, prove even more deleterious to wider society. 30 years ago, a high school diploma would be sufficient many jobs in the world. Today, even bus drivers and grocery store cashiers will often have university degrees. Which means that lacking such a degree cripples one’s career prospects. There are many jobs for which a university degree is unnecessary and, ultimately, a waste of time and money. Plumbers, mechanics, administrative staff can all do without spending three to four years discussing the ramifications of Sartre. But when presented with two job candidates, only one of whom lacks a degree, the situation is dire for that individual. Congratulations, you’ve made going to university mandatory for anyone with any career aspirations.

Of course, there’s more to university than simply preparing for the working world. There’s the joy of learning, the social atmosphere, and the chance to open your mind to new thoughts and ideas, and to challenge yourself at every turn. And all of these are great, and should be encouraged. But it’s an experience that just isn’t for everyone. And when you exclude capable students who could benefit from all this to make room for those who feel they must attend university, you’ve lost out again.

So what’s the solution? Stringent entrance requirements and a limit on the size of the student body. Those who attend university should do so because of the learning it can bring, and should be driven in that manner. They should be academically and intellectually gifted and open-minded. When push comes to shove, they should have a reason for wanting to be here, rather than simply feeling a coercive force to be.

If you can get into university, and have the drive to do so, you should. No tuition fees should stand in your way (and “top-up fees” are nothing but a poorly-disguised set of tuition fees). But you should want to be here. You should be driven to be here. And you should have a reason to be here. Because if you don’t, if what you want out of life is to be a plumber, then the government’s investment in your tuition is wasted. We need more plumbers. They just don’t necessarily need to hold degrees in art history.

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.

-Oscar Wilde

The world coming to an end?

I have had some seriously weird dreams the last two nights. The other night, I dreamt I quit my degree, joined the Marines (the U.S. Marines, specifically, which is odd since I'm neither a U.S. citizen nor do I live there), and shipped myself off to Iraq. This after almost quitting training from it being too hard, but getting all determined and dedicated (see every clichéd army movie in the history of Hollywood). By the end of the movie, there I was, M82A1 sniper rifle in hand, aboard a troop transport to go shoot insurgents. Keep in mind, I'm about as anti-war, anti-military as you can get, and this is just plain odd.

Last night, I dreamt that city after city was being levelled by some mysterious force that nobody could explain. Everything would be fine, then all of a sudden, all the tallest buildings would spontaneously collapse. Earthquake? Terrorism? Nobody knew. Then, sure enough, the city I was in got hit. I could see row after row of building go down, and knew mine was coming (I was in a skyscraper and the collapsing ones were getting closer and closer to mine). I grabbed my brother who was inexplicably there, and we fled to the basement, where there was a series of interconnected tunnels (basically like The Path in Toronto, for anyone familiar with that). We heard buildings all around us collapse, but we made it out alive, and got to the waterfront, met up with a bunch of people fleeing the destruction, and were then attacked by (I shit you not) Optimus Prime and Voltron, who I guess were evil, and possibly the cause of the destruction. Very weird. Also, at some point, a group of us refugees were asked if we were circumcised. Perhaps our rescuers were the Jewish U.N. or something?

Weird weird weird!

"Reality is wrong. Dreams are for real."

-Tupac Shakur

Why I judge you for using bad grammar

"The language denotes the man. A coarse or refined character finds its expression naturally in a coarse or refined phraseology."

-Bovee

This is an opinion article I wrote for my university newspaper, Student Direct.

The English language is under siege. It is under siege not from a hostile invader or a devious interloper, but rather from sloth and a lack of care. But the result is the same: the detriment and dissolution of a once-proud establishment is evident; the war of attrition is beginning to take its toll.

The first salvo was the spelling checker. A brilliant idea, when used to augment one’s spelling ability, the spell checker has devolved into a crutch. This can be shown in two ways. We all know someone who relies on the spell checker, and its younger sibling, the auto-corrector, because they no longer truly know how to spell. But the effects of this go much deeper. More and more, people fail to understand the difference between “their” and “they’re”, between “your” are “you’re”. Even wholly disconnected words have begun to be interchangeable. On far too many messageboards and facebook walls have I seen people who cannot differentiate the words “lose” and “loose” despite their wildly different meanings.

The strongest weapon in this epic battle, however, came in the form of small messages, both SMS text messages and instant messenger clients such as MSN. A new shorthand arose, especially in the case of SMS, where a 160-character hard limit enforced a decided sense of brevity. “You’re” and “your” became not only interchangeable, but reduced to “ur”, “are” became “r” and so forth.

The real damage did not come, however, until this shorthand extended its tendrils into mainstream society. With a short message, the brevity I described is understandable, and even I cannot decry its use. But when that vile shorthand begins to appear in emails, letters and (as has become increasingly common) submitted essays in school, a serious blow has been dealt to the English language. Combined with a general decay in attention to grammar and spelling, eventual capitulation often seems inevitable.

So, why does this matter? After all, language is fluid and dynamic; the English we speak now varies dramatically from that spoken by Shakespeare and his cohort. Slang and idiomatic expressions have long shaped the face of any language and always will. We incorporate new words both into the common tongue and into our official bastion of the language, The Oxford English Dictionary. Is this not simply another evolution of the same process? I don’t think it is, and I believe this for a number of reasons.

The first is the motivation behind this shift, and the speed at which is has occurred. These changes have been inspired by laziness and imprecision, not by an organic evolutionary process. They have entered the language quickly, leaving older generations often unawares and leaving little time for a truly cohesive set of language to coalesce.

My biggest qualm, however, is that these words are neither new nor more-descriptive. In fact, they achieve quite the contrary: when you confuse “you’re” with “your” by shortening them all into “ur”, you lose (not loose) variety in the language. The context may differentiate the meaning, but the flavour of the language has gone. Language is a tool. Like any craftsman, a writer hones his art through the application of a tool, and imperfections and dullness in that tool results in an inferior end product. One would never expect a carver to work with a dull knife, yet people are increasingly writing with dulled and rusty linguistics.

It’s not a minor point that in Orwell’s 1984, Newspeak, the pride of Oceania, is hailed for its perpetually-shrinking vocabulary. That the language gets smaller every year is seen by the misguided souls who push it as a benefit. In the mock-Communist world of the novel, that lack of flavour is representative of a world under the thumb of tyranny. The meaning is there, but everything that makes a language unique and colourful has been stripped away. In such a world, Shakespeare would not write “that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”, he would instead simply state “I don’t care who your family is”. The meaning remains, but the joy and depth of the phrase is forever lost.

This war rages all around us, and will do so for the foreseeable future. It does so on badly-spelt YouTube pages, it does so in hastily-checked emails. The warriors are not active participants, but merely those too lazy to care. And for this, I judge them. Because if you choose to not expend the necessary effort to craft your words with care, you help the denigration of a mellifluous tongue. You don’t need to be a linguistic perfectionist, but if you know not whether you routinely lose your keys or loose them, I will forever feel scorn towards your indifference.

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

- The Boondock Saints

Feminism and Gender Equality in the 21st Century

"Does feminist mean 'large unpleasant person who'll shout at you' or 'someone who believes women are human beings'? To me it's the latter, so I sign up."

-Margaret Atwood

I recently read a very well-written and incisive blog posting written by a woman I met through debating. Though I commented on it on her blog, I wanted to expand somewhat on what I'd written, because the post adeptly elucidates much of what I've felt for some time, and does so from a position of someone with a vested interest, lending it even greater credence. The post details the concept of feminism and why the author considers herself not to be a feminist. This is something with which I have to concur. I think the concept of feminism, as commonly held and espoused by the majority who claim to preach its doctrines, is flawed. Now before my friend Liz whacks me with a 2x4, let me explain...

Let me be clear-I am by no stretch anti-female. I don't think women are inferior, I don't think they should be subjugated, oppressed or controlled. Further, I don't write off many of the concepts of feminist theory; I just think that, as a whole, the idea has been skewed by people who have taken it off the rails into ill-defined and often blithely shallow territory. So perhaps it's better to say that I take issue with what feminism has commonly come to be construed as, as well as those who claim to be shining examples of its doctrines.

I agree with the cited blog post insofar as I think that one of the greatest problems is a lack of definitive clarity as to what feminism actually means. And here I think the first kinks begin to show in the armour. Because many people would tell you it relates to equality of opportunity. This means that a man and woman, of equal qualifications and skills, should be paid the same. To me, this isn't feminism, this is humanity and common sense. So, is it an opinion that women are intrinsically superior? There are certainly those who hold that viewpoint, but I think the question is trite, primarily because superiority is itself ill-defined-superior in what sense? So what about the notion that men and women are totally identical in every potential, and it is societal influences that mould us into disparate creatures? I deny this notion-first of all, there are physical differences; men are not (by and large) bigger due to diet and gym regimes. We are bigger because testosterone grows muscle better. Similarly, I firmly believe that men and women have different intellectual and emotional strengths; I don't see anything wrong with this. So, many of the most commonly-held views of what it means to be a feminist are views with which I either disagree or agree insofar as I feel the issue is self-evident and requires no such "-ism" label. I'm not a "masculist" because I think men should have the chance to be paid as well as women; I shouldn't have to be a "feminist" to believe the reverse is true.

My second issue with most people's view on feminism is that it is a zero-sum game. A zero sum game is one in which, for one side to "win", the other must "lose". For example, sports are a zero-sum game: if one team rises in the rankings, another has fallen. Stocks, however, are an example of something that isn't. Just because Apple's stock rises, doesn't means Microsoft's falls. In fact, it's theoretically possible, through the magic of economics, for every stock in existence to rise in a given trading day. In terms of feminism, I feel many people view the issue as a zero-sum game: if you are pro-woman, it must mean you're anti-man. This is just wrong, and it this thinking that leads people to automatically equate "feminist" with "man-hater". It is simple fact that one can support women's rights without impinging on men's. But the inherent assumption behind many feminists is that you must push men down in order to be able to elevate women. All this does is galvanise both sides into a black-and-white idealogical debate that need not take place. It is similar to movements such as the Black Panther movement in the 1960s that preached black supremacy; rather than striving for integration and the elimination of barriers, all this does is energise your opposition.

The biggest issue I take with the allegedly-feminist views I've heard espoused, however, is that there is only one way to be feminist, and only one line of thought leading to that standard; that many groups have wildly disparate views of what that one way is is evidence of the very fallacy of the concept. There are those who will say that a woman should not use her looks to her advantage; there are those who preach conformity to male ideals (as evidenced in the shoulder-pad suits so prominent in the 80s and 90s). There are those who feel that every instance of the word "man" should be replaced with "person" (chairman to chairperson, congressman to congressperson and so forth). There are those who feel that men and women are fundamentally identical and therefore every position should be held by 50% women (I'll get to this ridiculous assertion in a minute, as I feel it's deleterious enough to merit its own paragraph). In a realistic, pragmatic world, there is no singular way to do anything, much less define one's identity. A perfect example of this arises in one of my favourite television shows, The West Wing. At one point Sam, one of the lead male roles, makes the comment "you'd make a good dog break his leash" to Ainsley, a recurring female lead who is both skilled and very physically attractive (and dressed in a very fetching backless ball gown at the time the comment was made). A female coworker takes offense at his "sexist" remark-she feels that Sam is degrading Ainsley by complementing her on her sexuality in lieu of her skills as a lawyer or her intelligence and general aptitudes. I disagree. I don't think that being physically attractive takes away from one's skill or power in other areas, nor do I feel that it automatically makes one an empty shell. This is the consensus that many of the other characters reach in that specific episode, but I feel that many feminists would still take offense. My point here is that neither side is automatically right. There are arguments to be made that emphasising one's sexuality decreases one's power and control or automatically makes it impossible for one to escape being merely "eye candy"; similarly, there are arguments that say one should use any and all tools at one's disposal and that complimenting a woman (or a man for that matter) on their sexuality in no way implies that you value them less as an intelligent human being.

"What's the point in feminism if I can't shave my legs when I damn well want to?"

-S. Camus

Now, the matter of quotas. As I mentioned above, there is often a push amongst feminist groups to eliminate the gender split in the workforce, either in terms of wages, or in terms of the number of people who make up that role (that is to say, every job should employ 50% women, 50% men). The disparity is especially prevalent in certain fields, notably computer science and engineering. In many cases, schools are actively trying to recruit female students into these programs. In some cases (I read an article to this effect ages ago, which sadly I cannot locate), there is a stated goal of having 50% enrollment. I think this misses the point entirely. Assuming that, just because the overall ratio of women-men is 50-50 implies that any given degree or job (much less every degree or job) should match that ratio is foolish, and is a shining example of feminism gone awry. Men and women do think differently, they have different strengths and weaknesses, and different avenues of study and employment appeal to them. A simple example is highly-physical labour (firemen, construction workers etc.). Men are physically larger and stronger than women, and I see no harm in there being more firemen than firewomen. In academics, if a particular field appeals more to one gender, so be it; this happens for both genders-some programs (notably biological sciences, psychology, veterinary science and many of the fine arts) are absolutely dominated by women and yet I feel no urge to cry foul that these degrees are discriminating against men; I realise they are degrees which are simply of a greater magnetism to women, for varied and perhaps unknown reasons. What we must do is ensure there are no artificial barriers to entry to these jobs or degrees. When it comes to women in engineering and computer science, this means making sure there's no harassment of women, either overt or subtle, that there isn't a residual "old boys' club" mentality, and so forth. Unfortunately, if you're a politician it's easier to point to a number and say "50%! Success!" than it is to to a thorough audit of any lingering sexism in a system as broad as a university or workplace. And politicians will take the easy and more-publicly-visible way out whenever they can.

Similarly, an assertion that every woman should make the same as every man is ludicrous. Unluckily for women (or lucky if you think kids aren't a giant pain in the ass), women have been saddled by nature as the ones who bear children. This means that a woman who chooses to raise a family must take time off work. But what people fail to realise is that a year off work actually sets one back by well over a year: the lost training, missing out on technological advances in one's line of work, and simply forgetting some of what you've done mean that a year's diversion mid-career puts one further back in one's career than it would seem. Put another way, someone with five uninterrupted years of experience will be much better-trained and much more capable than someone who has worked every other year for the past decade, taking the alternate years completely off of training and employment. The solution to this, of course, is to enshrine the concept of paternal leave, allowing men to share the burden of child-rearing early-on, and to allow women to continue training where possible while on maternity leave. But to compare a man and a woman in the same position, each with an apparent 10 years of experience, and then point to their disparate salaries as automatically implying sexism is disingenuous. Because if in that time, the woman took a year off for each of two kids, her career has probably been set back by the equivalent of three years. Blind equality is misleading; what's needed is a true evaluation of the equivalency of two employees' potential, and salaries commensurate to that.

This leads me to what I think we need in place of feminism: a total equality of opportunity. In every case, whether it be a job application or a university education, everyone who applies, regardless of gender, race, or any other characteristic, should be presented with the same chances to excel or fail based on their individual merits. Those who are the best candidates should be admitted and prosper; those who are ill-suited should (and will) fall by the wayside. This should be held true in our hearts and enshrined in the annals of law and in academia and corporations the world over. This isn't an easy thing to achieve-distorted views, adversarial sentiments and old-fashioned sexism are often hard to detect, even within oneself. But I think that modern feminism in many ways is counter-productive. By trying to force a supremacy of women, by espousing views that are easily seen by the masses as "man hating", and by trying to pigeonhole women into any one of a number of wildly disparate "right ways to do things", you exacerbate the situation. People put their guards up, and become instantly recalcitrant to engage in the matter to a meaningful degree. You cannot reason with someone whose shackles are nor, nor with someone who feels attacked and denigrated.

So if not feminism, what is this? I think it's simply: humanism. You don't have to feel women are superior in order to feel they should have equality of opportunity. That's just human decency. You don't need to believe men and women are identical in every biological way to believe that the salaries of two people who are truly equivalent should be same, no matter what; you just need common sense. And you don't need an antiquated affirmative-action quota or ratio system to ensure that every role in the world is filled by 50% women; you just have to make sure that it settles at the natural, equilibrium level, that there is nothing preventing hopeful candidates. It's not feminism, it's humanism.

"Women: their rights, and nothing less; Men: their rights, and nothing more."

-Susan B. Anthony