TaN: Controversial issues such as racism and gender profiling can easily and clearly be resolved if people just do a little background research into their origins and reason/s for them. It is because these terms and issues has been given new significance and meaning and they have been demonized that people come to regard them as evil and wrong.
This is similar to the case I presented to my ethics class where we discussed the common practice of censoring — i.e., bleeping or beeping a word or phrase — prior to or during airing. It is as if the term or phrase itself is inherently evil or bad when in fact it is the connotation that society has assigned to it/them that is the culprit. It is what the term or phrase represent and not itself that is evil or bad.
But even then, people have a misconstrued understanding of what is truly evil or bad. Just because term or phrase refers to something evil or bad does not make it wrong.
In the Holy Scriptures — where God is the ultimate arbiter of what is good, true, right, and right — it is said (or written, if you want to nitpick) that something is evil or bad or wrong only if it is undeserved, unmerited, or unwarranted. It is said that to call someone a fool is not — which we normally would consider as — bad or wrong if the person is really a fool. Telling the truth is never wrong, and this is why political correctness is just plain wrong and bad.
To sugar-coat our words just so that it will not be offending or offensive to someone is to do injustice to the person because we are lying to them — even if it is an “innocent white” lie. In the Holy Scriptures, we are told that we should call someone a fool if s/he is truly a fool, no qualms about it.
Of course, it is an entirely different story of the term or phrase is subjective, as in the case of telling someone s/he is beautiful when, in our eyes, s/he is not. This is because, as the saying does, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is subjective and people have different perceptions or ideas of what beauty is (to them). In this case, political correctness may be the better choice.
In the case of gender profiling, the origin for traditional roles identified with a certain gender is because there are certain tasks that are best done by a specific gender — like child-bearing. Early on, we have determined certain familial roles and chores that are better suited to a certain gender because of both practical and realistic reasons.
It is generally accepted that a man’s body is built for power whereas a woman’s body is for endurance. This is why men usually can (dead) lift heavy things better than women but will “collapse” in exhaustion when doing housework, while it is the reverse for women. Men normally have larger and more upper body strength so lifting heavy things comes easy. Moreover, it is biologically true that men develop large muscles faster and easier than women.
This likewise explains why men tend to be better at focusing on one task at a time while women find it natural to multitask. As mentioned by Sir Ken Robinson in one of his TED talks, women have a larger or thicker (by 25%) corpus callosum — the bundle of nerves that connects the right and the left side of the brain — and this enables women to do several tasks simultaneously without breaking a sweat
Differences in the mix or proportion between male and female hormones is another reason for gender differences. Another is that women have better peripheral vision and finer body hair which accounts for their greater ability to sense or feel — like when women are better at feeling if they are being watched.
In the animal kingdom, movement is transmitted through the air because there is displacement whenever there is movement. Better peripheral vision means danger coming from the (blind) side is detected earlier by women, whereas thinner body hair means they are easier to move or “vibrate” when slight displacements in the air caused by close proximity movements are detected — thicker hair are stiffer so it is more resistant to “shaking” by displaced air resulting from movement.
I think this should be enough to clear up matters and dispel all the stupid controversy over issues that are or should be non-issues. We must be aware that there is a conscious move to create an atmosphere of fear and apprehension in order to manipulate and control people’s behavior, reactions, and decisions.
TaN: When people become mere data and statistics, it becomes easier to disregard their welfare and become inconsiderate and lose our compassion (for others and to our environment), about their problems and misery. It becomes easier to lose our humanity and simply concentrate on raking in profits with wanton disregard for others.
It is dangerous. tempting, and a slippery slope to go down to the point of no return. It is very tempting to reduce people to mere data and statistics for the excuse of being efficient but sacrificing our dignity, our humanity, our essence of being a person is a path never to be taken. It is the trend today and pressure under the guise of global competitiveness is stripping man of his humanity. It reduces man to the level of machines, (inanimate) business assets (or liabilities, in terms of payroll and less gain in profits), and commodities (to be traded or discarded when our usefulness and productivity is spent or no longer required).
It is very easy to justify all the impersonal approach and treatment of people — workers, laborers, staff, etc — when they are not seen or treated as people but as inanimate entities. It becomes easy to forget ethics and fairness when employees are looked upon as mere assets and liabilities. It becomes easy to detach any tinge of compassion and consideration because employees are not regarded as people.
And this eventually leads to mis- and maltreatment via policies and daily interactions and hire and fire them as if they mean nothing — just company property. And nowhere is it more so than in economics, which is categorized or defined as a social science and yet there is no trace of social but only science.
This explains the ease at which companies are unhesitatingly retrench and dismiss employees in favor of cheaper labor elsewhere — unthinking of their welfare and especially the families and people than may depend on them. This is one interpretation of the significance of the Biblical passage referring to “666” — the reduction of man to mere numbers and data (his tax identification, social security identification, company identification, passport identification, bank account identification, credit card identification, and all the other identification numbers).
TaN: It suddenly dawned on me that there is one particular rating system used in some schools that is the ideal and (relatively) fair — one where the students are merely given grades and their corresponding (class) standing but is not considered failing even when the grade is very low. This not only saves the student embarrassment but (assumingly) even takes into consideration the fact that many students who failed or did poorly in school prove to do very well after (or outside, in the case of drop outs) school. Some even went on to become very successful, such as the likes of Albert Einstein and many contemporary so-called self-made millionaires and billionaires.
Moreover, to make it even more ideal and fair, the student should be given the right to choose to repeat a certain subject or course (when s/he received a poor rating) because it will be up to the (future) employer to decide whether to accept or hire him/her or not…given the ratings in the transcript of (academic) records. It is unfair for a student to be required to repeat a subject or course just because of poor performance when s/he may not be needing it when s/he leaves school and the employer will not mind or will disregard it.
In addition to the everything mentioned, in the collegiate/tertiary level, the student should be permitted to assemble his/her own curriculum and determine which subjects/courses s/he would like to take (in relation to his/her desired subsequent career or profession) but subject to the scrutiny and approval of an academic panel — who will determine is the subjects/courses chosen are relevant to the desired career or profession and the corresponding prerequisites. A case in point is the requirement to take certain language courses which are completely irrelevant to the field of specialization desired, like taking Mandarin, Spanish, Nihonggo, or French for accounting or commerce students.
It would be well and good if the student were studying to be a linguist or translator or that s/he have intentions of being employed by a company or traveling to a country where the imposed language subject/course is a requirement — or studying French because s/he would be going into the foreign service. If you ask me, it is all a money-making scheme.