Allowing for Extra

How do you start? Building Capital so that you can gradually become less dependent on your earning ability, seems like a game reserved for the wealthy. Advice is tricky because we have different lifeboats in a shared storm. When people talk of being “self-made”, they are often referring to whether, or not, they inherited Capital or a pre-packaged business from Mom or Dad. It is more complicated than that. Most of us have weird relationships with money. Wrapped in our sense of worth. In our relationship with our parents. In their relationship with their parents. In our politics. The advice I give is deeply wound up in my own story. Our self is a bigger container. The bubble we grew up in. Mine is based in Apartheid and Feminism. One based on inequality and gender roles. For me, starting starts with constraint. Having a firm and absolute hold on what “enough” looks like. Then not feeling like more than that is better. I wasn’t trapped in debt, and had the option of choosing a path to develop skills & knowledge to get an income. So my first steps were pragmatism, spending discipline, and delayed gratification. Building a buffer. A few months spending in the bank. Then putting the extra to work. I realise that extra is a foreign concept for most. That is what needs to change.

Scarcity and Abundance

Life preparation was very gendered in the bubble I grew up in. One example of this was that Mathematics was compulsory in High School for boys, but not for girls. I lived in a Patriarchal society where men ruled outside the home, and women ruled inside. Feminism was rising (at a lag), but it was very much focused on Choice for women. No pressure (different pressure). What would you like to do (you should probably do this)? Let’s chip away at the obvious obstacles (well, do our best). Girls doing Boys’ things is serious. Boys doing Girls’ things is funny. Implicitly acknowledging a hierarchy of where we place value. For Boys, choices were squashed and pragmatism was promoted. How are you going to put food on the table? Put childish choices aside. Man up. The horrible truth of the world is that if you follow what you love, it is often harder to monetise. In part, because a fundamental of love is abundance, and a fundamental of money-making is scarcity. In a gendered world, it was women who focused on love, and men who financed it.

Unwinding Scarcity

Men's Group

[The following is a fictional conversation between me and other guys]

Trev:

I am part of a Men's Group that meets on the first and third Friday of each month. None of us have traditional jobs, which allows us to make a commitment to meet. I met one of the members through a friend of my Fiancée. I was initially hesitant around the idea of a *Men's* Group. The Mens' Clubs I knew of growing up were gradually opened up. The Church I went to had a Fathers Group. I am a Feminist, and am particularly wired against Men being seen as the wallet, sperm, and muscles, and Women as the homemaker and childrearer. Many of my female friends hate being the only woman in the room in Boardroom settings. Stay at home Dads hate being the only guy in the room in Mom's support groups. I was worried about perpetuating the problem.

Melusi:
What are you guys doing in this group? When me and my friends get together, we are normally getting up to mischief. It is true that we can't get up to the same mischief when there are women around, because they are spies. You can't talk to the mosquito about your problems with Malaria. Except I can go into much more detail with women, because they are better listeners. They don't try and fix the problem. They just make me feel better when I tell them stuff. Or send me nice direct messages when I am sad.

Trev:
The thinking about the group is to challenge some of the traditional ideas around Masculinity. We have very different philosophical views on the world so we avoid getting stuck in debate. I don't like using the Masculine/Feminine framework. I think a lot of that is built up, and deep soaked, through the group habits we have and the words we use. The word for Bridge in German is "die Brucke" (Feminine) and in Spanish is el Puente (Masculine). This means Germans are more likely to describe a bridge as fragile, elegant, and beautiful, and Spanish people will call the same bridge sturdy, towering, and strong. The words we choose matter. But as a Mens' Group, the idea is that we can challenge those false boundaries more easily, since we would behave differently in a mixed group.

Sylvain:
I don't like to admit it, but I do behave differently in front of women. With guys, we learn how to act on the sports field and on the playground. There is always an underlying threat of violence in the way we argue, even though we learn to control it. It means guys also learn where the line is. I actually feel like when the stereotypical woman does it, she cuts way deeper. Cutting because she doesn't have any fear of pushback. The truth is that for years, we have been deep soaked with treating women with kid gloves. Open the door, pay the bill, pick up the heavy thing, change the tire, fix the computer, take out the rubbish... there isn't the feeling of equality. There is also the sexuality thing. I kind of want to impress women in a way I don't want to with men. I still want guys to respect me, but it is easier to open up. Even if I am not flirting directly.

Mahesh:
So this thing is a "Safe Space". You can let out your ugly bits without fear in a container. I get that too. Particularly if you are talking about some of the things that feel obviously wrong. Wrong in the sense of an urge or belief you have, and you know is frowned upon in your community.... but you have anyway. I feel way less judged by guys. They have views, but care way more about themself than you. Often when I am with a group of women, they talk about each other really harshly. It is like they are their worst enemies. Even the good friends talk about each other behind their backs. I don't want to open up in mixed groups, partly because I don't know whether what gets said will leak.

Zolani:
All these things are very much stereotypes. Except stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. I am not sure how we can break these things down. I heard someone say the other day that "Men are redundant". The is definitely a crisis of Masculinity in the sense that we don't know what the expectations are. We don't know the playbook. We can't ask for advice. There are books like "12 Rules for Life" by Jordan Peterson, and "The Way of the Superior Man" by David Deida, but they make me a little queasy. I am genuinely interested in figuring out a new way to do things. Maybe it does mean us doing the work in separate groups of Men and Women... but that just doesn't leave me feeling comfortable.

Simon:
I married my best friend. A lot of the "Gender Wars" go out the window when you do that. I reckon a lot of straight people are going to start marrying each other. It is easier to build a life together when the rules are explicitly open to discussion. Managing Expectations is absolutely key. My husband and I don't have the weight of societal interference in deciding what those are. These raw discussions don't have to be had separately. They do have to be had, and the better we get at creating spaces for these, the easier it will be to decide what type of world we want to live in.

Trev:
I have found the group incredibly helpful. At times the guys drive me absolutely nuts. My inclination is towards self-sufficiency. I also have to work really hard at not being defensive when someone gives a different perspective. Gradually learning to let people into the mess, without feeling like I have to follow everything they say. In my experience, you only ask for help if you need it. Learning to ask for perspective even when I don't need help is a real challenge. That managing expectations stuff. Advice is always autobiographical. It is up to me to filter which bits of hearing someone else's story are useful.

Sindile:
Maybe throw some wine into the mix? It doesn't all have to be so serious. There may be some things you need to do with this sort of regular seriousness, but you can mix it up. Have your Men's Group. Don't feel bad about it. Women have Women's groups. The key is not to make your life a Men's Group. To make the homebuilding, muscles, money, bridges, babymaking, vulnerability and strength be tools in a toolbox available to everyone. Do both. Just build up multiple overlapping groups and don't let any of them define you. We should try to be a little less prescriptive on what is an isn't okay. Just don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. Consent is the password.

Trev:
More generally, I would like to see more spaces for us to air our craziness. It feels like there is more of a witch hunt going on than an empathetic attempt to learn. A nervousness around being found out and set alight, rather than a curiosity about developing practices to tease out our blind spots. It would be great if we good get to the heart of whatever is causing anxiety and release it. Genuinely see each other, and support each other. Most of us are dealing with a lot of stuff, and we don't sufficiently see that we are not the only ones. I regularly wrestle with confusion, heartsore, homesickness, anger, and other emotions that are best not displayed in public. The more ways we can build sufficient trust to let people see behind the curtain, the better.

[Melusi, Sylvain, Mahesh, Zolani, Simon and Sindile are Fictional Characters]

Making Up

Trev:

Competence and Confidence are guys' version of Make-Up and Fashion. Trying to understand why men struggle expressing vulnerability is similar to understanding why even modern women still tend to beautify themselves. We still seem trapped in the behaviours that are deep soaked into us. If I show vulnerability, it feels like I am asking for a response. It doesn't feel like I am able to just say, "Yes, this is difficult. I don't want input. I don't need help. Just expressing what is going on is sufficient". For the most part, this disturbs the illusion that all is under control. I hate feeling like people are worried about me. It seems connected to whether they respect me or not. I get that respect is supposed to come from within, but that isn't the way any of the communities I have ever operated in work. Respect is the currency.

Sacha:
Sharing the thoughts and feelings going on in your head doesn't mean you are asking for help. It is just letting down the filter. It helps us all realise that everyone is struggling. Otherwise we get a Facebook Profile version of everyone's lives full of exciting holidays, smiley moments, and great successes. We don't hear from the people who get back from work on a Friday night absolutely shattered, feeling lonely, but without the energy to reach out to anyone. Perhaps they have been working so hard, they haven't even invested in friendships enough to be able to reach out. Maybe if the picture that was painted in what we share was more honest, then it wouldn't be something people need to hide.

Richard:
Except the world is designed for winners. The news we follow is about the winners. The Motivational Speakers we hear from are the guys who get up at 5am, run a half-marathon, and then do more before their morning tea break than most people do in a week. We read books about people who have built Businesses. We watch ultra-athletes from around the world performing spectacular feats that are much easier to watch from the couch than to try an emulate. We are constantly being measured, and like it or not, Men are still not really allowed to opt out. Then you are a loser. And losers lose.

Francois:
So why take any notice of that rubbish? It is all in the mind anyway. You choose your own reality. You control the way you respond to the world, and how you feel about it. We all end up dust anyway. Nothing you do really matters. It just seems like it matters. Just make different choices. Feel deeply. Express your weakness confidently.  You'll find, like Sacha says, that you are not alone. The way you feel things is your own, but it is a combination of feelings others have. We are one big web of emotions and actions and reactions and just letting go is a powerful way of actually engaging with the world more strongly.

Arthur:
You lost me there. The traditional model works. If you fight it, it will be more complicated. If you are a man, your job is to be a provider. Your job is to build a solid foundation around which others can thrive. Most great men had huge internal struggles, but they didn't go around have a cry about it. Life is hard? And so? Get on with it. Your boss doesn't give you credit? So? Work harder and start your own company if you don't like working for someone else. You aren't doing the work you like? And so? You made bad choices when you were younger. Take the pain and find out what skills you need to do thing you to get there. Long hours? Shame. Would you like a hug? No. Do what you need to do.

Mary:
That is harsh. Why do you think so many Men crack if you put that kind of pressure on them? To think that you can't express vulnerability and still be successful is ridiculous. There is more to life. The idea that men won't be attractive if they don't come across as competent and confident is also a bit backwards. Authenticity is incredibly attractive. Faking might get you through the door, but if you are talking about building a life the is something sustainable, then you will eventually get found out.

Trev:
I am comfortable opening up about my struggles, but I do have to work on a fairly deeply wired defensiveness. If I open up and then someone proceeds to give me advice, I actually start feeling a little sick. I value my self-sufficiency. I really like being able to make decisions for myself. As soon as someone gives me feedback, it feels like I have to implement it or they will stop giving it. Feedback with strings. I approach ambiguity, uncertainty, and complexity in a fairly detached way. I try be decisive knowing that I will often be wrong. Making small decisions that have limited unintended consequences. Opening up sometimes makes me have to justify myself.  Sometimes opening up feels more like something I am doing for the other person, than something I need myself. I don't actually feel like it.

Paul:
Feedback is incredibly helpful. Most advice is advice to ourselves. You should take it as that. The person can only see the thing your are sharing through their own context. Their advice can only be a projection of their own anxieties, baggage, and world view. You can hold what they say lightly. Sharing doesn't have to be a way of "finding a solution". A good listener can listen without actually interfering with your thought process. Listening as lubrication rather than intervention. If people feel a desire to change your course of direction, that is their issue, not yours.

Trev:
I get that intellectually, but I hate feeling on the wrong side of people. Feeling like I am misunderstood, or that I have disappointed them. Like I haven't met their expectations. I have a high degree of internal confidence, but am much weaker when it comes to feeling that I am a "failure" in other people's eyes. Going back to my initial metaphor. I can imagine it being like someone who acknowledges make-up and fashion are expensive time-wasters, but still wears them because that is the way the world works. You can't pick every battle. Sometimes bottling things up a little is just way easier. Having things under control means I don't have to put so much effort into appeasing the people I care about.

Angela:
We are busy reinventing society. The traditional Masculine/Feminine stereotypes were thrust upon us. As Arthur said, this was perhaps for a reason... but those reasons have changed. If we want a healthier world where we aren't torn up internally just to please others externally, then we have to have these tough discussion. I really don't think this is a Male/Female thing. Much of it is simply cultural roles we have inherited. The more strong men are allowed to show weakness without being judged, the more likely others are to feel free to follow in their path.

[Sacha, Richard, Francois, Arthur, Mary, Paul, and Angela are fictional]

Unrequited Love

I went to co-ed schools up till the age of twelve. All my schooling (in the 80s and 90s) was in Westville, which is about 14km away from the Durban beachfront. Playschool was at Cygnet, and we were divided up into the Red, Blue, and Green Groups but all played together. Then when big school started, the little boys were given grey shorts and white shirts, and the girls blue dresses. We had classes together but separate playgrounds.

Once the difference between being a boy and a girl started to become obvious, I was pretty useless. I can still remember the line of the girls I (in one direction) liked. It was all very innocent, but I was still a bit of a creep. Mine isn't a love story of little boys and girls holding hands.

The only way to see the girl I liked was to run across the girls' playground. We were allowed to only because the toilets were on the other side. My ruse was pretty thin. The girls would often sit in circles talking, while the boys playground was relative chaos. I don't know how much this had to do with the choice of uniform.

When I got to Senior Primary, there was one occasion where we had to choose between Woodwork and Knitting. All the boys, bar Trev, chose woodwork. I was accused of being gay (in a very homophobic culture), which to this day I don't understand. Any rational person would know that by choosing knitting I would be getting to spend more time with the girls.

A similar situation happened with the choir. I now have a deep voice. Before it broke, I could sing higher, and was smaller, than most of the girls. Gender Apartheid would stretch to who sat where when we sang. I would again be with the girls. Although, it didn't improve my ability to speak to "them".

Circles or Football. Woodwork or Knitting. High Voice or Low Voice. Developing the skills to see each other as friends was actually quite a challenge. There was one stage when a girl's mother was a teacher. We (two boys and two girls) got to spend breaks in the library at the back of her classroom reading Afrikaans books. That isn't code, because we were incredibly well behaved, and any love felt was unrequited. Not that that stopped me trying. Oozey love letters to someone who didn't want to receive them seemed like a good idea. My crushes got a loyalty that was more curse than cute. The one girl gave the other a note she had written once, "helpful hints and tips to get rid of Trevor". From the age of 13, we went to separated High Schools. I am sure there were a few girls who breathed a sigh of relief.

I joined the Durban Youth Council when I was 16, and that was one of the first regular places where the mixing felt genuinely put aside to work on projects together. Where the girls were not only there on social occasions. Perhaps the difference was I was 16, and a little less creepy, but I still wonder about the underlying lessons we were being taught by the way things were set up.

Often I feel like unwinding some of the discussions about masculinity, femininity, gender roles, consent, expectations, obstacles needs to go quite deep. It feels almost like two parallel cultures we have built up, even though we have lived in the same spaces.

I am embarrassed about many of my trial and error lessons into figuring out the dance we play to find the person we build a life with. I am not alone. That confusion has seeped into building whole societies around gender separation. About seeing the entire other gender as a beauty/strength parade for a romanticised idea of that one relationship. Ideas built around property, protection, purity, survival, competition, success, and community. Gradually we have broken down walls, but there is some difficult building required in the rubble.

Toothy Grin, and Off to Boys' High School

Getting Better

Rachel:

I don't really understand the fuss that was made about the Gillette advert. It simply says we shouldn't treat each other badly. It shows a particular brand of fragility that so many people have pushed back on it. They accuse us of being Snowflakes, and then they are so easily triggered by a polite request to be better. I like it when companies use their platforms for good. Like this, and the Nike adverts and the Nandos adverts. It certainly beats the American ads which are half disclaimers about how the drugs they are selling will make bits of your body fall off.

Tracy:

I didn't like the ad. I find it worrying that Social Movements can be so easily co-opted by Corporates and trivialized. This is a difficult conversation that needs having. It feels similar to the American division in News Media. Years ago, everyone would have watched the same channel and had a view. Now each side gets different facts and reacts. Companies now seem to be picking sides. Even though I agree with you that which 'side' seems obvious here. I also worry that this ad makes out as if the issue is important because it affects men too. We can't deal with #MeToo without saying #ToxicMasculinity harms men.

Peter:

I didn't like the ad for the reasons Rachel says... but am one of those reverse-Snow Flakes if that is the binary choice. It's all just a bit too much, to be honest. All this stuff about Privilege and blah, blah, blah. I get it, but isn't there a time limit on that? Can't people start taking some responsibility for sorting their own stuff out? I really think Jordan Peterson is nailing it. What is wrong with being the traditional male? Without being a dick. Having muscles and enjoying a barbecue isn't toxic. Messing around on the playground is how you learn resilience in a world that isn't fair. A world that isn't safe. It is not just Peterson who makes sense in this space. It isn't a Right-wing push back. If you look at some of the work of David Deida, and others in the spiritual space, having a balance between Masculine and Feminine energies is important. We can't all just have a cry about it when life gets hard. Someone has to provide the backbone. Even if it is the Woman that Mans up.

Michelle:

It's all about choice. I have read some of the Deida stuff and it makes me cringe just as much as the Peterson work. I think the Male/Female divide is lazy. It is how we have always done it, and there are certainly strengths and weaknesses we associate we men and women, but aren't there other words?  The word 'Bridge' is feminine in German, and masculine in Spanish (strong, sturdy, towering). Even when speaking English, German speakers will tend to describe Bridges using feminine adjectives (beautiful, elegant, fragile) and Spanish speakers will use masculine ones (sturdy, strong, towering). We get so deep soaked in expectations that it isn't really a choice. We are making progress on women making "masculine" choices, but boys are still restricted from making "feminine" choices and expected to adhere to positive masculine requirements - strength, provision, stoicism.  

Arno:

There are some hard discussions. In the past there was a play book. Rather, there were playbooks. Everything is now up for discussion, and the world has profoundly changed. 200 years ago, most children died before their fifth birthday. We were mostly poor farmers. We have gone through an industrial revolution where most of us were workers, and then in rich countries we have gradually moved out of our bodies and into our heads.  The playbook has been burned. Most of us grew up in sexually repressed religious cultures that were sexist, homophobic, racist, and xenophobic. You don't need to look further than previous generations to get your cringe on. Maybe we should all just cut each other a little slack and figure this mess out.

Rachel:

Isn't it simpler than that though? We do tolerate negative behaviour from men. We do live in a world where women are fearful, because that is completely rational. They should be scared. We do live in a patriarchal world where there is a pay-gap, and woman are restricted from progressing in the work place in the way men are. Even if on paper they are "allowed", culturally woman are expected to work as if they aren't mothers, and be mothers as if they don't work. Expected to thrive in a male world, while still being feminine. This push back strikes me as a lack of willingness to change that.

Tracy:

There is an element of whataboutism going on here. As Rachel says, there may be other issues but that constantly brings the discussion back to Men. I don't like the trivialisation of the ad, but the #MeToo and #ToxicMasculinity discussions are important. There has to be a way we can have these discussions where an issue gets addressed fully, without each garden path being followed.

Peter:

Ok, but that has to work both ways. We need to be softer on boys, but we also need to be harder on girls. Sometimes you do need a bit of grit to push through, rather than a cuddle. I have seen too many examples where when life gets hard, people opt out. Life is hard. For the people at the top, life is often awful in many ways. Make the choice sure, but then accept the consequences. The only reason they do it is because of the Kudos we often attach to people able to be "Toxic". I don't buy this Choice stuff. You can't have everything. Choice sometimes requires a partnership with someone else who will do the stuff you aren't prepared to do. If you want to Yin, someone has to Yang. Someone has to take out the Garbage. Someone has to fix the toilet.

Rachel:

Sure, but it sounds like you aren't acknowledging the problems. You have jumped directly to why men have it hard. Men have always had the platform. Maybe it is time that we focused the attention elsewhere.

Peter:
I am not Men. I am Peter. Half my ancestors are women. A big chunk of the reason things stay the way they are, is because women are half the parents, and want them to stay the way they are. I don't dispute the problems. I just don't think the public discussion is very nuanced. A lot of people who feel differently about this would rather just crack on with stuff that needs doing than make a lot of noise about it in public. It seems some people choose to be activists, and some people choose to take action.

Tracy:
We can at least be grateful that we are at this messy stage of the discussion, and action is being taken. We are also 50/50 committed to a solution, as you say. Still not sure I like Corporates triggering the chat, but maybe it is a positive that the discussion follows.

Switzerland

It is normal in South Africa to talk of democracy starting in 1994. Switzerland is famous for its federal democracy, which balances the need for central government, and local power on local issues. It has 26 cantons, with Bern the seat of the federal authorities. It has one of the world's oldest constitutions, and requires a referendum on changes. It also makes provision for the constitution to be rewritten to prevent the various additions missing context. Although there were local wars between Catholic and Protestant cantons, eventually they worked together to manage areas of common interest, and ensure peace. Despite seeming an 'advert for democracy', Switzerland was the last western republic to grant woman the right to vote (1971/1991). Looking back, I also struggle with the ideas of American 'Founding Fathers' as leaders of democracy given the gaping holes. History is far more messy than we would like. The growth of cooperation hasn't been a straight line. Sometimes we need to stop, pause, listen and rewrite with our new context. 

Direct Democracy

Djibouti

Initially colonialism in most of Africa was colonies - not control. More forcing your way into a bedroom than taking over the house like New World colonies. Settlements and trading cities grew and treaty areas of control were formed/forced. In Djibouti, France signed treaties with the Somali and Afar Sultans to gain a foothold. Railroads were built to Dire Dawe and Addis Ababa making the area an important Red Sea port. In 1958, 1967, and 1977 referendums were held regarding independence from France. The last one brought independence. In 1960 the population of Djibouti was 83,636 and is now around 850,000. Over 90% of the women and girls have undergone female genital mutilation. In 2016, UNICEF estimated some 200 million women in 30 countries had undergone this procedure. 

French Somaliland -1922

Doing Well, Being Well

My bubble has an underlying guilt motivator. A cultural wiring of hard work and earning what you get in life. There will often be conversations about whether someone has 'done well' in life. The measures are usually external. Salary, responsibility, authority, conspicuous wealth, titles, degrees or any other signals that you have earned respect. That you aren't seen as a loafer. That you aren't a parasite on society. That you are adding value.

One of the aspects of privilege that I am aware of is that I can opt out of this. I don't consider everything I do as a reflection on other people. I don't consider what they do as a reflection on me. I don't identify with my narrow group. White, male, 25-54, english-speaking, university educated, Top 1% of the global wealth (when I was working, just outside that now that I am not), and a citizen of both South Africa and Britain. I don't come from any oppressed group other than being the youngest sibling. I am significantly taller than my oldest brother, so I am at an advantage in pushing back. When you are part of an oppressed group, I can see the appeal of identifying with that group and proving that they are equal to all. Part of my privilege is that I don't have to.

Tall and Short

My problem with 'doing well' as a measure of success is that it is relative. It also requires external signals that can be measured. As soon as you have to display progress, a lot of energy ends up being put into marketing. Energy gets put into influencing and getting recognition. This ends up attaching expectation to everything we do. I don't like that. I like the idea of being able to do things for their own sake. I like the idea of being able to dive into the internal stuff. The stuff that can't be measured. The stuff that can't be held on to.

I like the idea of being well.

Come the Rain

One of the most interesting bits of long distance running is how much of a gender equaliser it is. Ann Trason won one of the most hard core 100 mile events 14 times (Western States), and twice beat all the men bar one.  At the very long distances, it is less about brute force and more about the story going on in your head. The strongest people in my life have been women. The idea that they would be able to push on as the men drop out resonates with the world I have seen.

Ann Trason

Technology has the effect of being an equaliser. Guns meant the physically strongest no longer got to dominate people who were smarter. So the stronger lighter skinned barbarians from the North didn't get to sack the smarter darker skinned city dwellers from the South again. Eventually ideas and knowledge win out. They also spread since an idea used is an idea shared. A rock lifted is just a rock lifted.

Imagine a world where there was hardly any water. The richest person would be the one who controlled the water supply. She could have whatever she wanted, since people would exchange anything for water. Without water, nothing else they have has any value since try as you must, you can't drink dust. Then one day the rains come. The rain changes everything. The previous rules of engagement change. Suddenly the same water that was priceless has a price of almost zero. The richest person in the world is suddenly the same as everyone else.

Got Water?

I believe it is possible the rain is on its way. I believe that if Artificial Intelligence is really smarter than us, it would realise that keeping people trapped below their potential is crazy. I can imagine an AI that is better than any person at anything digital, or anything that can be done with a machine, or anything that once done can be repeated. That AI could realise that it could deposit a Universal Basic Income into everyone's bank account. It could become an individualised coach for every person. It could learn what motivates them and help out. Like rain falling on dry lands, it could release the creativity they are holding beneath the earth. By the AI spending a little on watering, it will gain multiples out of the creative fruits of people.

If the rains come, the rules change. Like the internal strength that makes women less likely to drop out in the long races. I believe that the days where our ability to release potential is based on competitive advantage, where it is based on transaction costs and lack of transparency, are numbered. The rain is coming.

Rain Releasing Internal Potential

(Photo: Flickr/ Viktor Dobai)

Dark History

16 year old Trev was a staunch Feminist. Before terms like ally or HeForShe so I can't get in trouble for claiming a word I shouldn't. One of my first serious paintings was my impression of Jane Alexander's 'Oh Yes! Girl'. Her image of a murdered Cape Flats prostitute is very disturbing. I tried to take it and empower it. The image is supposed to be uplifting. Beautiful even. While keeping the trauma that can not be forgotten. Many of the barriers to happiness involve wounds that can not be healed. We have a dark history. All of us. The question is how to move forward.

My 1996 impression of 'Oh Yes Girl' by Jane Alexander

Eve and Epiphanies

Daniel Dennett tells the story of Mitochondrial Eve. In a fun feminist twist on the western habit of taking the guy's surname, our genetic story is carried down by the ladies. It's an argument for keeping the naming convention - names morph over time as people get spelling wrong. The genetic paper trail is for keeps. I understand there is an equivalent Y-chromosomal Adam we are all descended from, but in Biological rock-paper-scissors Mitochondrial DNA is more traceable than Y-chromosomes. Hard core biology friends, please point out if I am wrong.

African Eve

Everyone has a mom. Some women have kids. Some don't. So if you step back one generation, there are less moms than kids. Step back again and there are even less. Carry on doing this enough times and you get to one single common Great (to the power of lots) Grandmother. The most accepted theory is that this lady came from Africa and probably lived about 100K-200K years ago. Yup, we are all African, we are all family, and borders are stupid.

The interesting thing is that she wouldn't have been alone, and she wouldn't have been particularly 'special'. Along the way bad things happen that can wipe out populations. Part of surviving is being in the right place at the right time. We know this Mitochondrial Eve had at least two daughters. If she had had one, the daughter would have been Eve, not her. Like male surnames, all her female contemporaries failed to produce a single, unbroken line. That isn't a lack of skill in a 50/50 world. Think of family names that 'die' because there is no boy child. As we spread out, and the got wiped out, the various bottlenecks brought the family together. 

There is an analogy between Genes and Memes. A Meme is an idea or behaviour that spreads among people in a similar way to how genes spread. Like Eve, a particular idea may end up being very important later on. The source of future ideas. Like Eve, we may only know this later on. At the time, the idea may not seem that special.

It is nice to think we will have Epiphanies that will change our whole worldview. We know there are lots of places we are wrong, but by definition we don't know that we are wrong. If we knew we were wrong, we would change our mind. The interesting thing is that our ideas develop slowly over time. We may only realise we have had an epiphany after the drip drip drip of several ideas. Day to day we may not even notice the change.

What we do know is we learn, we move, and we remember. Somewhere inside all that are the important bits that matter. The bits that will survive. The Epiphanies.

Dear To Us

There is a cost to Free Speech.

A few years back I wrote a post about how the digital world was saving the first thing we would normally grab in a fire - our photo albums. With 3D Printing we are a step closer to being able to back-up physical objects. In the comments Anita spoke of her Grandmother's ruby earrings that were stolen in a robbery. Would a back-up have been able to adopt the memory? Can we save the things dear to us.

The cost of Free Speech is similar to whether the replica captures the original.

I have just finished reading 'Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali (AHA). A Somali refugee fleeing an arranged marriage, she ended up in one of the countries at the very forefront of the European Enlightenment - Holland. This is a country where they are weary of being 'proudly Dutch' since patriotism is not that distinct from racism and a stone's throw from Xenophobia. She flourished.

         

Ayaan - Theo 

In flourishing, she became a member of the Dutch Parliament and took on the plight of Dutch Muslim Women who she felt weren't receiving the benefits of a free society because the way the Dutch had learnt to prevent conflict between different world views was to allow separate 'pillars' within society. Communities could determine their own values. They could have their own schools. AHA argues that this means that Dutch society is effectively allowing the abuse of women within parts of the Muslim community. She tried to shine a light on some of the practices. Her primary desire is to bring about a similar enlightenment to that which occurred in the Western World. Many in the Muslim world objected to this apostate. Strongly. She had worked on a short film to expose the issue. While she received protection as a member of Parliament, in November 2004, the director of the film,  Theo Van Gogh was murdered with a note to AHA stabbed into his chest.

I came across the book with a recent storm over whether AHA should be allowed to speak at an event at Yale. A group had collected signatures saying that her approach amounted to hate speech against Islam and she shouldn't be given a platform. When you allow Free Speech, you allow criticism of everything. You aren't saying it is true, but anything that can be said is allowed to be said. 

The cost is that nothing is holy. Nothing is treated with that reverence where no one would dare point out any gaps. There is something beautiful about holy objects and ideas. They give us comfort. They allow us to believe that despite the difficulties we face and the dirt in the world, we can always come back to purity. 

Watching Frankie Boyle and Borat show Free Speech in all its glory. Absolutely nothing is holy. Every time you think Frankie has said the most shocking thing you have ever heard, he warns that something else is coming up. You feel dirty. In truth though, perhaps this dirt is a form of soap. If you don't find something shocking funny, or worse, you don't find something shocking shocking. We have a problem. You strike on something that needs to be thoroughly scrubbed.

 

Patriotism is awesome. It helps bring groups together. It helps you forget about your own little issues and be part of something bigger. When it morphs to Xenophobia and you start treating others with disrespect - it is time to discard it. The cost is worth it.

Having holy & untouchable objects and ideas is beautiful. It allows calm. It gives us a focus point and a guide to steer through a complicated world. When holy hides abuses and dirt - it is time to challenge it. Like a ring that has been replicated, it will not be the same thing we had loved. Its authenticity has been challenged. We have to build up that love or transfer that love to the new object, the cleaned belief. The cost is worth it. 

Funny Angry Boring

Putting the cacophony in our heads into words is hard. Reading a recording of what you have said can make anyone seem like they struggle to put sentences together. This is hardly surprising when we actually try put sentences together, and are able to write and rewrite until we are vaguely happy with what we have said. We also have the advantage of non-verbal communication when we speak. We can see if an idea is taking root or if we need to change our choice of soil. It is one of the reasons Virginia Postrel (@vpostrel) argues decision making works best when it is pushed down to the front lines. Sometimes we understand things before we can put it into words. In fact, we aren't able to communicate that tacit knowledge - but we can act on it.

I find the cacophony outside our heads fascinating too. The process of fleshing out ideas is similar. We have the angry people. The funny people. The politically correct people. The people who don't actually care. Then we have the weirdos who seem to know exactly what will get under everyone's skin and so they do that intentionally - the Trolls. With our own thoughts we have to learn how to control the noise and decide how to act. We can be kind and recognise certain thoughts as not being how we feel. Apparently 'Everyone's a little bit racist', sexist and biased about those exhibiting other sexual preferences - see Harvard's Project Implicit. Learning to acknowledge and work out biases is how we are kind to our thoughts and don't have to identify with them.

Seeing the responses to Emma Watson's UN speech have been interesting.

From a Feminist:'Black Girl Dangerous' Mia McKenzie

From a self declared 'Godless, Gay, Troll' against Feminism:http://youtu.be/BevwBz2BTnw

I think humour has its role. It allows us to say things with the explicit understanding that we don't necessarily agree with what we are saying. It gives us an out. The other option is that you talk in a politically correct way trying to upset no one. That doesn't help because you will always upset someone so basically the only way to be politically correct is to shut up. The second response above appears to be more in the funny category and the first more in the angry category, but they both have clearly marked sides. There seems to be an attempt to have to either agree or disagree. To pick a camp.

Bill Clinton recently said "I actually think we're less racist, less sexist, less homophobic than we used to be. I think our big problem today is we don't want to be around anybody who disagrees with us. And I think that in some ways can be the worst silo of all to be held up in".

There are lots of things that need solving. In the past communication was incredibly hard so we formed groups to solve issues and raise awareness. Groups are hard to form and they are awesome to be a part of, so once the group is established they take on a life of their own. Our ideas can then morph to try be a part of the group. 

I think it would be great if we could shift away from groups now that it is easier to coordinate around memes - all you need to do is throw some ice-water over your head. Then you need some people to actually do something, which we are getting better at too - e.g. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

Here is one thing I think Emma, Justicar and Mia would all agree on (and it is not about what a group should be called)...

In the end, whether we are Funny, Angry or Boring - we do seem to be moving forward.

Allocating Anger

The last century has seen tremendous progress in all sorts of ways. In the same way we struggle to balance how we choose to spend our time because we are putting out fires, and we think sharks are really dangerous because of Jaws and because they 'look scary', we aren't very good at taking a step back and recognising what has been achieved. Steven Pinker does a great job of looking at the big, positive picture in this book:

                                    
The Better Angels of Our Nature                       Coal Mining by UK County

The last century has also been about isolated battles overlapping. Instead of a cohesive 'Human Rights Group' (which should include everybody), people slowly had to have their resistance to their own prejudices broken down by realising how others felt when something similar happened to them. The movie 'Pride' is an awesome example of this happening when the Lesbian and Gay community of London decided to support a small Welsh village of miners during the 1984-85 Miner's strikes. While the miner's thought of themselves as 'against the perverts' - their ability to see the common struggle, and the friendship, shed light on their own bigotry. 

Forming groups does allow us to focus on a specific issue. We can't solve everything, so focus helps, but by its nature it is exclusionary. A straight miner doesn't come across a Lesbian & Gay rights group and say, 'I'll be having some of that - where do I sign up'. It also makes us form tribes that become tribes for their own sake. Then we identify with the tribe and the tribe makes up our mind for us. If you are a Democrat - you believe this. You can't believe that - you must be a Tory. How can you say that - next thing you are going to don a Red Beret and chant Juju.

In order to get their view across, a group often gets angry. There are few things that are likely to close your ability to see another groups point of view more than them being angry with you. Emma Watson's (@EMWatson) talk below is a call to include more men in the 'Gender Equality' battle. She is launching a group called 'he for she' to shift the conversation from Feminism which she feels has some of those angry connotations. In it she mentions how there is not a single country in the world that has achieved 'Gender Equality'. In this she is taking a different approach from Christina Sommers (@CHSommers) who points out that women in the US and Europe are the freest and most liberated in human history.

The big ticket items that Watson mentions are absolute no brainers in the quest for progress. We need to end the practice of child marriage. She didn't mention Female Genital Mutilation - again a no-brainer. The issues however become much subtler once countries on the whole become wealthier and more liberated. What is equality? Is fewer women in the Boardroom an indication of sexism, or is it an indication that the Boardroom is an awful place to be and exceptional women are making better life choices? Should female sports stars get paid the equivalent of their male counterparts? These issues go beyond simple obvious facts. They start involving economics and how pay gets decided by supply and demand. They start involving philosophy and how people want to spend their time. In a liberal society we also end up doing a vast array of different things. When there are small groups, it becomes harder to see if there are biases or if it is just the way the cookie crumbled - random. The issues remain important, but I think creating groups around them becomes harder.

I am proud to live in a time when one of the most powerful people in Europe is Angela Merkel, and in Latin America is Dilma Rousseff. Whether you agree with them or not, Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, and Condoleezza Rice have been examples of women right at the centre of global politics. More personally, I have had no lack of female role models. My mother, aunt and step-mother all went back to university in their late 40s/early 50s to do honours and masters degrees and become psychologists. I have and have had awesome teachers, lecturers, bosses, colleagues and friends who have been females. The women my friends and I have dated, loved and married have been equals. I do not think the same could be said of 50 years ago. There are also still large chunks of the world that need to change. There are also still small chunks of hold-outs who still have ridiculous beliefs.

I agree with Watson that groups that don't exclude will help. I agree with Sommers that we live in an unprecedented age of freedom and liberty. I agree with all those who think we have more work to do.

I like celebrating the big wins. I have a preference for focusing on the areas that can lead to those when allocating my anger.

Going Dutch

It is interesting that the term `Going Dutch' is used for Men and Women who are dating splitting the bill.

Why I say that, is that it is also a country known for its liberal prostitution policies.

Is the guy paying for the girl not just a mild form of prostitution?

Doesn't `Can I buy you a drink?' not translate to `I fancy you, can I chat you up?'

The more significant relationships in my life have been with Girls who were determined to pay their fair share. I think that goes hand in hand with being empowered.

Why should the guy pay?

An argument goes:

1) It shows respect. The girl spends ages getting ready and the guy just slaps something on. This is the argument that makes me connect the practice to prostitution. A form of payment for effort.

2) It is a tradition. A part of Chivalry.. Yes, and once this guy who reinforces gender roles during courtship achieves his aim... does this tradition go hand in hand with the man being the head of the house, the woman doing the cooking and cleaning, and the woman raising the kids?

I think this is a tradition that reinforces women as being objects there to be bought. Don't get me wrong, I am all for buying flowers, romance and all those good things... but that doesn't imply that one partner is being `paid for' since romance goes both ways.

So that is why I think the concept of empowering women by legalising prostitution and the concept of `Going Dutch' are consistent. In our society we get it wrong on both counts.

Mr. & Mrs. Bill Clinton

I don’t know who else finds this kind of thing a relic of the past. I would doubt the two would ever get introduced as Mrs. and Mr. Hillary Clinton, or Mrs. and Mr. Hillary Rodham? I am no expert on Surnames, but I have given this question a fair amount of thought. For those who have read Ursula Le Guin’s Earthsea Trilogy, watched Romeo & Juliet, or for those who are simply used to responding to their surname, we all know that names are very important. We also live in a society that is trying to rid itself of being a `Man’s World’.

I was put in my place once, or rather forced to empathize when I was seriously asked the question of relinquishing my surname. I had thought of double barrel surnames before, but I had never thought of giving up my surname. It didn’t feel good. Yet this is what is expected of females by western naming conventions. By default I think this reinforces sexist behaviour. But is there a solution? Double-Barrel surnames become Quadruple-Barrel surnames and then resemble South Sea Island names.

Part of the problem (sic) also comes about now because women have been empowered in the workplace. After years climbing the social ladder as Oprah Winfrey, why would she want to be Oprah Steadman? A name is a brand. This is most obvious with Doctors who qualify with their Maiden Names. The thing is a Dr Meredith Grey is called Dr Grey, not Dr Meredith, so she doesn’t use her full name anyway. Some doctors use their first names and so become Dr Phil.

But… I think I have come up with a solution!

What if we kept a Matriarchal and a Patriarchal name… so my name right now would be Trevor John Ruddock Black. I could still call myself Trevor Black, or if I was in the mood, I could even call myself Trevor Ruddock. Both are my name, neither are my full name.

Now say

Mary Jane Simmons (Mother’s Surname) Seymour (Father’s Surname) marries

Trevor John Ruddock (Mother’s Surname) Black (Father’s Surname)

To become

Mary Jane Simmons (Mother’s Surname) Black (Husband’s Father’s Surname)

Trevor John Simmons (Wife’s Mother’s Surname) Black (Father’s Surname)

Without losing anything we didn’t lose before, you now have both a matriarchal and a patriarchal name. Calling myself Trevor Simmons then doesn’t bother me, since I don’t go around calling myself Trevor Black all the time. Choose the one you like. I don’t even necessarily have to change my signature (which doesn’t include my full name anyway).

Names are important. For us guys to say it doesn’t matter is because it is an issue we have never had to deal with.