Jun 05 2017
Business in Denial
‘We’re just providing what the market, what people, demand.’ ‘The customer is squarely in the driver’s seat.’ Yeah right. Gosh, shucks, don’t-look-at-me.
One, I doubt that’s true. I mean, if people really wanted your product, you wouldn’t (have to) spend millions on advertising, advertising to persuade them to buy it. Supply isn’t (just) following demand; demand is (also) following supply. Your supply. You’re in the driver’s seat.
Two, even if it is true, that people do want it, I find it hard to believe that someone with enough whatever to get into positions of power, decision-making positions, would be so meekly obedient to the desires, the demands, of the common people.
Or so helpless: ‘demands’ is such loaded language, implying that resistance, your resistance, is futile, implying that you are without power here.
Or so spineless – as if you have no mind, no desire, no will of your own.
Please, have the guts, the maturity, to take responsibility for your actions. You have a choice. You produce/provide what you do because you choose to, because you want to. If you are acceding to market demands – and I have no doubt that you are – it’s because it’s profitable, it’s because (you think) it’s in your best interests. You ‘want to make it easy for the customer to do business with [you]’ because business with you is business for you. Customers are a means to your end of profit. Otherwise you’d be as interested in poverty management as you are in wealth management.
‘Our shareholders demand high returns.’ Another pass-the-buck denial of responsibility. One, again, I doubt that’s strictly true. Did you ask them all? And was their response fully informed? Were they aware that their high returns come at the expense of others? (Others’ low wages, loss of employment; others’ high prices, loss of choice through monopoly; environmental degradation; etc.)
And two, even if they do, again, do you have to obey them? Of course not. Unless – and here’s the all important hidden (by you, from you) assumption – unless you want the value of your company to be ‘high’ so people will give you money. There’s that self-interest again.
‘Return on equity is an important measure of our success.’ Not the amount of good one does, not the amount of happiness one creates, no, these things don’t matter; success isn’t even justice, isn’t getting back what one puts out, no, success is how much more one gets back than one puts out. Self-interest. Literally, interest. For the self. It’s egoism, pure and simple. And childish and dangerous. I don’t think ‘society as a whole’ is in the vocabulary. The total inability to recognize, let alone deal with, the moral dimension – i.e., the consideration of others – is frightening.
And the ego knows no satisfaction. ‘From start-up to growth.’ The life cycle of a business seems to stop there. At growth. And more growth. And more growth. Excuse me? What about stasis? What about decline? They are part of the entire life cycle. Only a cancer grows and grows and grows.
May 28 2017
The Hook (Up) – a short script by Peg Tittle
FADE IN:
INT. BAR — NIGHT
Crowded bar scene. MAN and WOMAN do the standard flirting thing, he buys her a drink, they dance, then exit. Their dialogue isn’t important — the bar’s too loud for us to hear much anyway. But it’s clear that both are willing to engage in the sex that follows.
INT. APARTMENT — LATER
They enter her apartment and move through it toward the bedroom, happily and heatedly, kissing, touching, and unbuttoning each other on the way.
INT. BEDROOM — CONTINUOUS
They are on the bed, then in the bed, which has a nightstand right beside it, then while intercourse is clearly occurring —
WOMAN
So, do you want a girl or a boy?
He stops mid-thrust.
MAN
What?
He pulls out. Grimaces at his limpness.
WOMAN
Well, you aren’t using any contraception, so it stands to reason you want a child. I mean, you must know that —
(she gestures vaguely)
MAN
(rolling off her; things are clearly over)
Of course I know — No, I don’t want a kid —
He’s up and dressing.
MAN (CONT’D)
I assumed you were —
WOMAN
Pretty important thing to just take for granted, isn’t it?
MAN
(his anger increasing)
What is this, some sort of trap?
WOMAN
Not at all. I’m okay with it. I mean, I’ll charge for incubation services, $50,000 is about standard, and then give you the kid, no strings —
MAN
I don’t want a kid!
WOMAN
Then why —
MAN
Because you’re the one who gets pregnant!
WOMAN
I realize that. And as I said, I’m okay with it. If you’re the one not okay with it, if you’re the one who doesn’t want this to be reproductive sex, then you’re the one who should be using contraception.
He says nothing as he continues to dress.
WOMAN (CONT’D)
Are you usually this adept at separating cause and effect? At not looking at the consequences of your actions?
He reaches for his jacket.
WOMAN (CONT’D)
I mean, if you and a friend do a B & E together and he’s the only one who gets caught, you’re okay with that? You’d really not consider yourself equally responsible?
MAN
(quite angry now)
I’d consider myself lucky. Bitch!
He strides out of the bedroom.
WOMAN
(cheerily)
I’ll call you!
May 28 2017
What’s Wrong with Power (a few preliminary thoughts)
The thing about power (power over others, that is, not power over oneself) is that it can interfere with the other’s freedom of choice. But it does so only if they use that power, you may wish to clarify. So people should simply not use their power over others; they should not even show they have it.
Well no, the thief doesn’t have to use the gun in order to interfere with my choice of giving or not giving her my money. Simply having the power to shoot me affects my decision. But, you’ll counter, other people always have some sort of power over you – the thief may not even have the gun with him. (Yeah, it’s usually a him.)
Correct. In fact, he may not even own a gun. He need only have the power to buy (and then use) the gun. In fact, a gun need not even be involved. He could run into me with her car. The bottom line is that everyone has the power to do something harmful, something hurtful, to everyone else. Therefore, everyone’s freedom of choice is limited in some way. And that’s all there is to this point: there is no such thing as complete freedom of choice – all of our decisions are made in a context of possible, or probable, consequences.
But there’s something here of importance: the difference between possible and probable. Surely we give more weight to the latter. Harm is more probable if the thief has a gun pointed to my head than if he has yet to even buy one.
And there’s another point of importance: there is a difference between constraint and coercion. Constraint becomes coercion only when the person would’ve chosen otherwise had the constraints not been there. That is to say, if I would’ve given my money to you anyway, your power over me is not coercion, it is not controlling me.
And interestingly enough, control is not dependent on the intentional use of power by the other. Just as often it is one’s own judgement, which may well be incorrect, of the probability of harm that controls one’s behaviour.
Having power over others, others having power over us – these are facts of life. The easy part is distinguishing constraint from coercion; the tricky part distinguishing possible from probable. But our freedom of choice depends on these distinctions.
May 21 2017
Sex, like Religion / Religion, like Sex
What do Madonna, Prince, and Leonard Cohen have in common – with evangelists, ministers, and priests? They all feed on the proximity of religion and sex.
But, but, you stutter, don’t religions mostly prohibit sex, considering pretty much anything to do with the body to be distasteful or unclean or just plain immoral? Well, yes. Could be hypocrisy. Could be denial.
But on more than one occasion, doesn’t God in The Bible require the sacrifice of a virgin? And look at St. Theresa’s face – it’s orgasmic.
So what can religion and sex possibly have in common? Well, they both promise transcendence, ecstasy. (They both fail to deliver, but that’s another point.)
What else? Religion is like infatuation (which is fuelled by sexual desire): both involve adoration, worship, of the object of one’s desire. Add a little confusion and pretty soon one deifies the object of one’s desire or desires the object of one’s deification.
And both religion and sex involve salvation: one looks to God like one does to a lover, for salvation in the other’s arms. (They both fail to – never mind.)
Furthermore, sex involves a release, a purging if you like – rather like fasting, or confessing and then doing penance. Again, one gets confused with the other, and pretty soon sex is thought to purify. I’m sure that’s what all those priests thought when they had sex with those boys.
The extremes of sadomasochism and bondage and discipline highlight the similarities between sexual fanatics and religious fanatics. More than one saint has submitted to flagellation, by self or by others. Isn’t every monk given a hairshirt and every nun her own little whip? Suppose things aren’t exactly consensual – well, it’s no coincidence that ‘rape’ and ‘rapture’ come from the same root.
And to kneel in prostration is to put one’s ass in the air – I’m ready, enter me, oh Great One.
May 14 2017
Gender and Sex
Gender and Sex
Do you know the difference?
Do you understand the consequences of getting them mixed up?
Do you understand the consequences of thinking they’re related?
May 14 2017
Size Matters – a short film collage
Size Matters, Peg TIttle
What if women were the taller sex? I suggest that this would make a difference in the power relationship between men and women. Ask any short man.
This short film is a five‑minute (approximately) collage of scenes from ordinary life. That is, ordinary life reversed ‑ one in which women are taller than men.
So every woman in the film must be taller than every man, except where specified; on average, the men should be 5’4″ and the women 5’10”. (Tap into women’s basketball and volleyball teams and men’s figure skating clubs and dance companies for extras.)
This is a silent film, though clearly dialogue is going on.
It is of utmost importance that the actors’ carriage not undermine the height difference. It should be mandatory for all actors to take a cross‑gender acting workshop.
For that reason, a woman should be director. Most women, more than most men, tend to be more aware of the nuances of body language that mark dominance and subordination. A woman director would thus be more apt to ask the actors to make the necessary corrections.
SCENES:
- The halls, classroom, and grounds of an elementary school: all the teachers are male; the principal is female; students are shown mostly in all‑girl and all‑boy groupings; when the group is mixed, boys and girls are the same height; all are engaged in gender‑neutral activities (I know that young girls play house and young boys fight, but showing this would confuse the point; young girls and boys also sit at their desks, stand around talking, walk down the hall, chase each other, etc.)
- A cafe: all the staff waiting on customers are male, as is the cashier.
- At home, in the kitchen: as she’s on the phone with an important call, she absently reaches to get something out of a high cupboard for a child, then does the same for him (he could’ve reached, but it’d be a stretch ‑ it’s just an easy reach for her, no big deal.
- At the office, in the lobby: a cluster of women executives walk in on their way to their offices; they nod or ignore male subordinates at reception.
- A dinner date: a man and a women are finishing dinner and the cheque is presented to her.
- Hospital admissions area: the nursing and clerical staff are male; the doctor walking past is female.
- The halls, classroom, and grounds of a high school: all the teachers are male; the principal is female; students are shown in situations somewhat similar to the elementary school scene, but now the girls are taller than the boys.
- A male‑female couple walking down the sidewalk: she takes longer strides than he does, so he has to walk more quickly; in fact, he has to half‑run to keep up, like a child (and perhaps he hobbles on platform shoes); the way they hold hands, she seems to be leading him, and is always just a tad ahead of him.
- At home, at dinner time: she and the older, taller daughter are at the table; the younger, shorter son enters from the kitchen carrying something, followed by the husband carrying something (nothing special, it’s just routine dinner time).
- Crowd scenes: these are sprinkled throughout the rest of the film, but it is imperative that they not begin about half way through so the viewers see the effect first (power relationship reversals) and only later the cause (only in the crowd scenes does it become really clear that women are taller than men in this world).
- At the office: a woman in her own office is engaged in serious business as a male secretary slips in with a message and a cup of coffee for her.
- Various offices at a university: most of the faculty are women (shown in classrooms or in their private offices); most of the admin and support staff are male (shown at desks in a more public area).
- A male‑female couple dancing: she leads.
- Hospital operating room: the surgeon and anaesthetist are women; the nurses are men.
- At home, in the living room: she’s in the larger of two chairs, reading the paper; she lifts her feet up off the footstool so he can run a vacuum cleaner between the chair and footstool.
- A male‑female couple posing for a picture: her arm is around his shoulders.
- A courtroom: the judge is a woman; the clerk is a man.
- At the office, in a meeting room (all of the women must be taller even when seated): the seven or eight women present are talking and deciding; the one or two men present sit silent, taking notes; a man half raises his hand for permission to speak, but is unacknowledged; a man reaches over to fill a woman’s water glass before filling his own, not because he was asked to do so but just as a matter of routine (the subordinate attends to the superordinate’s needs).
- A male‑female couple approaches a car; the woman gets into the driver’s seat; the man gets into the passenger seat.
- Election campaign shots: all candidates are women; the men are in the background and clearly aides.
May 08 2017
To all the men who
To all the men who let their mothers and wives do all the dusting, vacuuming, kitchen wiping, and bathroom scrubbing; to all the men who throw their garbage out of their cars and boats and ATVs and snowmobiles; and to all the men who ‘externalize’ the waste/disposal costs involved in doing (their) business — because it’s somehow emasculating to clean up after yourself, YOU NEED TO CHANGE YOUR DEFINITION OF ‘MASCULINE’. Because at the moment it’s very much like ‘infantile’ and ‘irresponsible’.
May 02 2017
Visionary?
Reading about Nipissing University’s Students in Free Enterprise (NUSIFE), which is a group of students who undertake projects “intended to increase the public’s awareness of entrepreneurship and business-related subjects,” it occurs to me to wonder why such an endeavour is undertaken only by business students.
Consider the projects listed below – and imagine…
– “Global Crusaders” educated high school students about minimum wages and exchange rates in five different countries – why not educate them about gender issues in five different countries?
– “Team Builders” led team-building exercises during a weekend program at the YMCA – my guess is that sociology students’ take on team-building would be quite different than that of business students…
– “Junior Tycoons” were high school students presented with a basic business plan – why not present “Junior Diplomats” with a recess plan based on insights from political science, history, and psychology?
– “Budgeting for Mental Health Patients” – how about “Philosophy for Mental Health Patients”?
– “My First Bank Account” – whatever happened to “My First Library Card”?
– “Nipissing East Community Opportunities” received a marketing plan – they could have used an environmental assessment plan…
– “Show Me the Money” was about financial planning guidelines on the web – how about “Show Me the Stars”, astronomy on the web?
– “A Feasibility Study” was presented to graphic arts students – how about presenting them with an ethics study?
Such projects, both by training students to apply their knowledge outside academia and by increasing the visibility of business in the outside world, probably contribute to the strangle-hold business – business activities and business interests – has on the world; therefore, suggesting that such endeavours be undertaken by humanities and science students as well is more than an exercise in imagination – it’s an identification of responsibility.
This particular infiltration of business is so developed that there are actually competitions among universities for their SIFE teams. Yes, there are poetry and drama competitions too, but poems and plays don’t reach out and engage the community in the same way; they just present to, perform for, the community (except for those cool workplace theatre guerrilla groups). Perhaps science does a little better – there are, of course, the annual science fairs, but from time to time I also see students out in the field with their lab kits.
This lack of engagement is rampant throughout the humanities curriculum. We teach our English students how to appreciate and write poetry, but not how to find a literary agent; how to appreciate and write drama, but not how to produce a play. Philosophy students are great at clarifying concepts and values, identifying hidden assumptions, testing for consistency and coherence; psychology students know all about how our minds and emotions work; sociology students know about people in groups, small and large, in cultures and subcultures and countercultures; history students know what hasn’t worked. Along with our students of gender studies and native studies and our other social science students, humanities students (the humanities focus on humanity – and who, what, are we talking about when all is said and done?), and of course our science students (what is humanity but one bunch of carbon-based organisms among many), would be great consultants if they had any consulting skills.[1] But we don’t teach them how to write a proposal, how to contract for business, or how to manage a project.
Until we do these things, our humanities and science students will be dependent on business students as go-betweens and as enablers. And since business students, by definition apparently, have profit as their motivator, their purpose, and their goal, there is bound to be a certain amount of unfulfilled potential. Business students are not likely to set up Sociologists, Inc. or History Is Us. Nor are they even likely to engage the services of non-business students as consultants.
OPAS is another example of the deficiency I’m trying to expose. It’s a partnership between Ontario universities and Canadian companies, named “The Office for Partnerships for Advanced Skills” with a mandate to “foster more effective relations between universities and companies who hire and maintain a highly skilled workforce” and “respond to requests and develop initiatives that promote increased use of university-based resources including advanced skills development.” One might be forgiven, therefore, for thinking it was pretty inclusive. This seems indicated even by the Special Events & Programs (which includes “the Visionary Seminar Series, Industry Sector Symposia, Internship & Reciprocal Exchange Programs and the development of a National Network”) and by the Skills Development statement (which says “In knowledge industries, skills requirements advance and change, creating new needs. OPAS responds to these changing skills needs with solutions designed and delivered by leading university programs across Ontario”).
However, a close look reveals that there isn’t a whole lot of room for humanities and social science; there’s something for science and engineering (an auto parts symposium is listed, as well as a biotech sector symposium), but it seems that the university programs they’re talking about partnering with are pretty much the BBA and MBA. Their website welcome page confirms this: “In today’s knowledge-based economy, business organizations are faced with the need to address constant changes in operating practices, human capital requirements, and technology.” That page is pure business buzz (“human capital”?!). (And there you do see the specification – “business organizations….”)
Indeed, had I visited the OPAS website first, I wouldn’t have been so surprised to discover that the keynote speaker (the only speaker) at the “Visionary 2000” seminar was the CEO of the Royal Bank (how much more focussed on business, profit, money, can you get?). And the very fact that his talk, nothing more than a Royal Bank promo, was billed as visionary indicates just how much we need to correct this deficiency.
[1] Marc Renaud, president of SSHRC, says “many of the key questions confronting our society fall within the realm of the social sciences and the humanities and our disciplines represent a goldmine of knowledge that can help. We need to make sure that people outside the research community know about this goldmine, so that it can be put to broader use” (quoted by David Bentley in “Humanities for humanity’s sake” University Affairs).
fiction
