Sex, Power and Conscious Capitalism

 

 

But you're an animal, baby it's in your nature
Just let me liberate you

- Robing Thicke's Blurred Lines

 

 

Thanks to #ghomeshi, we're having (or hopefully on the cusp of having) a meaningful conversation about male/female relationships - what's acceptable social conduct and what crosses those so-called "blurred lines."

 

I was thinking about this while attending Why Should I Care? last night at St. Louis' in Willowdale.  St. Louis' is a bar and grill, a place where alcohol is served.  The servers who were on duty last night were women.  Both were wearing somewhat-revealing clothing; tight, low collars, short skirts.

 

As I noticed this, I began to think of words of wisdom I've heard countless times from women in the service industry; it sucks to be stared at, to have men undressing you with their eyes, but showing a little skin is the best way to get tips.  It's a trade-off; being uncomfortable is the way to make money.

 

This got me thinking about the truism "sex sells."  Sex does sell - we see hyper-sexualized models in ads for everything from cosmetics to tourist ads to clothing, and beyond.  Troublingly, there's even an element of sexuality in the toy industry.

 

Why do men tip pretty girls with revealing clothing more than, say, an older man in a tight collar?  Why are we more likely to buy or pay attention to something that suggests an element of sexual empowerment over something more staid?

 

It comes down to genetics.  To our genes, the human body is just a vessel and a conduit; we exist so that our genes may reproduce.  As such, a great part of our genetic hard-wiring is geared towards reproduction.

 

In every species where sexual reproduction is present, there is sexual marketing; males with lush manes, extravagant plumage, complex dances or carefully-constructed nests.  In most mammalian species, males are the sexual aggressors; they seek out the mates and try to woo them.  Accepting females won't pursue so much as submit.

 

This isn't the entirety of the story, of course - there are plenty of examples of homosexuality, where no reproduction can occur, sex and sex acts as intimidation, but also couples that stay monogamously attached for life - a practice that limits one's ability to spread one's genes.

 

In our species, there are different degrees of predilections; just as some people are taller, or fairer skinned, or have quicker metabolisms than others, there are people who are more promiscuous or asexual than others.  Nurturing influences have something to do with this as well.

 

Working on the theory of evolution, in any given context those best adapted to the environment will thrive, while those less so will not.  This means traits (both masculine and feminine) seen as beneficial in a certain context will be more desirable than others.

 

Which brings me back to the notion of sex sells and, as a result, free market capitalism.

 

We like to think we're rational actors, and that the choices we make are practical; it's patently false, a convenient delusion we like to sell ourselves.  Our choices are largely made before thought enters the picture; if anything, conscious thought becomes a tool to rationalize our instinctive choices.

 

Back to the male tippers. 

 

Capitalism is a system of exchange with money being a conduit for transactions.  We pay what we perceive as the value of the thing we want; we get what we pay for.  Right?

 

So, is a man giving a big tip to a pretty girl showing a bit of cleavage rewarding her for the view?  Or is something else going on here?

 

The song blurred lines is all about pretty women wanting to be sexually taken by men, because they're animals; they're giving the signals that they want to be taken by how they present themselves. 

 

Female servers may show a bit of skin not because they have any sexual interest in customers whatsoever, but because they know it's what they have to do to get tips.  From the other side of the equation, what if it's the big-tipping men who are acting in a more animalistic manner - the bigger tip being a cultural equivalent to the nest, mane or lekking dance?

 

We end up with a problematic scenario:

 

Woman: sex sells, I need money to live, I would rather not be ogled but I know this is how the game is played.

 

Man: Hey, she's showing some skin, she's smiling at me, that's an invitation.  If I tip big, she'll know I'm a sugar daddy and maybe I'm in.

 

Not that these would be conscious thoughts, particularly where the male is concerned - all this happens at the emotional, instinctive, limbic level, where most decisions are made.

 

Sex sells.  It sells because it appeals to our basest instincts.

 

In capitalism, selling is everything - and marketing is core to selling any product or service.

 

Ours remains a male-dominated society where competitive fields like politics, big business and media are dominated by alpha males who, periodically, get caught abusing power for sexual gains.  This behaviour is overlooked when it can be, because it's guys like that who make the big bucks.

 

Jian Ghomeshi was a brand-builder and money-maker for the CBC.  There are countless stories of successful fundraisers or deal-closers who are overtly or passively sexist. 

 

Is there a tacit acceptance of power buys you sex as a counterpoint to sex sells in our society?

 

That may be the case where society isn't an issue, where transactions are the focus and societal niceties can be ignored.  Capitalism, remember, doesn't care about pro-social behaviour; it's all about financial self-interest.

 

What we're seeing with #ghomeshi and it's fallout, however, is that there is a lot more to society than financial transactions; if anything, we are tired of money dominating and the abuses of power that go with it.  This either coincides with or is a result of the rise of social media, co-working, crowdfunding and other tools of social agency.

 

It's no surprise that smart businesses are adapting to this trend and the evolved sensibilities of millennial by adapting their work process, focusing on pro-social leadership and putting some clear frameworks around those blurred lines.

 

Nobody puts baby in a corner, after all - or a binder.  Perhaps this is all indicative of our society maturing and learning to control our nature.

 

This is how conscious capitalism develops.  It's through consciousness, after all, that we all become truly free.

Remember, Honour, Learn

On Remembrance Day, we think of veterans who fought wars on foreign shores so that we might be free.

 

It's not entirely true, or at least not the truth in its totality.  The Korean War was unlikely ever to spread to Canadian shores.  It's unlikely the expansionist interests of the Nazis could realistically have reached our continent - a logistical nightmare to manage.

 

Our veterans and soldiers in service today aren't over there fighting for us, but for something beyond us.

 

As Canadians, there are certain values and freedoms we hold dear; along with them come certain responsibilities.  We believe in peace, order and good government - and where others suffer because those things are absent, we feel a duty that extends beyond national borders to the good of humanity on the whole.

 

Our soldiers fight so that others may be free, may live unshackled by the brutality and fear of oppression, may reach their individual and social potential as a whole.

 

When I travel to Europe with my grandfather, a World War II vet, he is held in the highest regard.  Even to children, he is seen as a saviour.  It's a very humbling thing.  To these Europeans, Canadians are seen as champions of liberty, good governance and a willingness to sacrifice so that others may enjoy what we have.

 

That's what it's all about - sacrifice.  Soldiers are more than paid public servants; they are defenders of our highest values.  They sacrifice themselves so that others - ourselves, our children, our foreign neighbours - may be free to participate in civil society in a manner of their own choosing.

 

It's this truth that we must never forget.

 

The Great Divide

 

It’s tough enough transitioning into adulthood without having to negotiate sex and power, but there it is — an additional challenge when you’re already trying to figure out how to interact with adults who aren’t teachers or friends of your parents.

 

Right about now, there are a lot of uncomfortable people out there, worried about how far this conversation will go.  They are recognizing that they are as guilty of abuses of position, power, confidence and social responsibility as anyone else. 

 

These folk would be eying the exists, if there were any.  Thing is, there aren't.  There's no way out.

So next up is the need for an explanation, a justification, a confabulation about how they aren't bad people - what comes next will be a variation of "I didn't know" or "that's not the impression they gave" or "I wasn't in control."

 

In many cases, this is true in ways the speakers won't even realize.  See, we assume that we are in control - rational actors making rational choices.  I mean, what's the alternative? 

 

Communication isn't easy, especially when we don't empathize.  We don't know ourselves - not like we assume we do.  And we aren't in control. 

 

And we can't be.  Not on our own.

 

Which leaves us with a choice.

 

Social Evolution in the World of Work

 

 

I predict that, just as the accusations made by Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas ushered in a sensitivity to sexual harassment many years ago, the Ghomeshi saga will create a sea change in Canadian’s views toward abuse of power in the workplace and the responsibilities of everyone involved.

 

This won't be because people in power feel any differently - not yet, at any rate.  There will be recognition of the need for the appearance of respect, empathy and all the rest of it.  With this in mind, a different group of leaders will stand a better chance of landing in positions of influence, changing workplace culture as a response to what's happened.

 

Survival of the fittest, in other words.  Social evolution.

 

The truth will set you free...

 

Culture Change: Stars vs Structure

 

Instead of focusing on the CBC's core business as a public broadcaster, the organization's senior management is currently spending considerable time and energy dealing with the scandal-plagued departure of Jian Ghomeshi from the hit radio show Q with Jian Ghomeshi.

 

An organization focused on building up star power rather than strengthening internal organization.  They're paying for it, aren't they?

 

Speaking of organizations with internal problems:

 

Unlike most workplaces, when harassment or assault does occur on Parliament Hill, aggrieved parties do not have the same access to due process as they would anywhere else.  

 

The Hill workplace is not subject to provincial labour laws, which offer protection in every other place of employment in Ontario.

 

Politics is all about star players - players like Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau.  They raise big bucks, tear strips off of opponents and win target audiences.  When you're focused on wins, that's all that matters, isn't it?

 

Maybe - but maybe not.

 

Herle's conclusions: "If we can't make people believe that the political system acts in their interests rather than in private interests, we're going to be in even more trouble." 

 

People don't trust politics.  Even politicians don't trust politics.  But trust isn't part of the equation - that's too much like sociology.  Confidence is the name of the game.  Confidence in individual alphas to be effective headmen, alpha males.

 

It doesn't work; it's not sustainable.  The more power gets consolidated in one office and one person, the worse the culture gets, the more tribal the entire institution becomes.

 

There must be some kind of way out of here.

 

We're just waiting for someone to enlighten us. 

 

It's time we stopped waiting.  If change is going to happen, and it must, it will not be imposed from the outside; it must be nurtured from within.

 

 

Crie de Coeur for Culture Change in Politics

 

 

I should never have weighed on an issue as sensitive as that without taking the time to hear the other side of the story.

 

A powerful, insightful piece into the closed, messy world of politics that anyone who's worked in that space will recognize.

 

I picked the one quote above because Copps is absolutely right - we all tend to be too rash in judgment without taking the time to get informed.  I myself have been on both sides of this equation.  Empathy is not a human strong suit and in politics, it's often seen as a liability.

 

So, confession time to lay the scene appropriately - I am not and will not claim to be holier than anyone.  I have unintentionally crossed lines, misread cues and equally been left in vulnerable positions by people with power to impact my career.  I am also guilty of weighing heavy judgment on people under whom I did have some degree of authority and, in trying to put a cause or brand first, have done harm.

 

Unlike a Rob Ford, though, I'm not content to rest on my human failings as a permanent crutch; I aspire to be better.  It keeps me busy.

 

In general, though, politics isn't about being a better person - it's mostly about winning, a lot about knocking down the other guy and somewhere in the mix is something about public good.  The biggest problem with politics, and moreso as broadcast tools like television and especially social media have entered the fray, is an obsessive need to control the narrative.

 

Enter spin.  Spin isn't lying; it's about framing the truth.  As in, selecting which aspects of the truth get focus and wish don't.  Not telling the whole truth isn't the same thing as flat-out lying; it's more like half-lying.

 

A man who tells lies, like me, merely hides the truth. But a man who tells half-lies, has forgotten where he's put it.

 

Politics is like no other field of work out there.  Politicians spend much of their time away from home, playing roles that aren't clearly defined.  They have actually job descriptions, but they don't match the reality of the roles they play.  Even when they do a good job, they can expect to be criticized.  Job performance is, ultimately, measured by just one thing - the ability to win seats.  A retail politician who accomplishes nothing other than perpetual wins is a success, even if they fail their constituents (ie, Rob Ford).

 

Politicians are employers, although their loyalties are divided between parties, constituencies and their own ambitions.  Staff likewise have to find balance between serving their masters, serving the constituents who elected their masters, serving the political parties that have no mandate over their work but existential control of their careers.

 

And none of these folk receive training in the basics of their work - payroll, HR management, project management, facilitation, etc.

 

Many elected officials like it this way - a lack of structural clarity gives them more absolute control over their staff, a poor-practice reality enabled by parties that don't really care what happens in offices, so long as wins are achieved and boats aren't rocked. 

 

In many ways, politicians are like "the talent" - the really good ones have electric personalities, can sell a message with vigour and are masterful at raising funds and winning seats.  Big personalities tend to come with big liabilities, though - some of the most "effective" talent among politicians and staffers can be abusive, manipulative and cruel. 

 

These aren't great traits to have in a collaborative, cohesive workplace.  In fact, such personalities are toxic to high performance and effective work.  Politics isn't about collaboration, though - it's a blood sport.  Party players will attack each other; internally, backs are perpetually stabbed.  Schoolyard gossips reigns supreme.

 

All this before you get to the outside influences.  Everyone wants to curry favour or pick fights with politicians; some of the shrewd players will try to get their hooks into staff, winning inside operatives.  In addition to the pressure to be all things to all people, never mess up despite not having training to know what a good job looks like, politicians and their staff are constantly exposed to free booze, ego-stroking lobbyists, threatening advocates and angry constituents.  There is little praise in politics, unless blatantly strategic.

 

It's a tragic irony that the environment in which our public policy gets made is often among the most toxic workplaces there is.  How focused on doing policy right can all of these people be if so much of their day-to-day existence is focused on the perks and perils of life in politics?

 

If you're using half your concentration to control the narrative, then you're only half-paying attention to whatever else you're doing.

 

Which is in no small part why we, the public, hate our politicians.  We see the bad behaviour, we recognize spin for what it is and become disgruntled.  It has never been the case that people are sheeple or that we have short memories; rather, it's that we see no alternative to dealing with the bad boys that swell the ranks of politics and, therefore, choose not to engage at all.

 

Political culture is toxic; politics attracts strong personalities and egos; citizens don't much pay attention regardless and when we offer criticism, it's rarely constructive.

 

This is not a system that can continue, uninterrupted, as it is, no matter what the successful, aggressive political people tell us.  They're like natural resource extractors, half-convincing themselves that things will never change. 

 

We are all of us standing on the burning platform.  Poor political choices and general civic disengagement are letting the toxicity of our Parliaments creep into every corner of our world.  The blatant racism we experienced in the recent municipal campaign is just a taste of what's to come, if something doesn't change.

 

It's no good getting mad at the aggressive alphas of politics - they win because we let them and succeed because, frankly, there's no alternative.

 

It's crucial to call attention to the abuses that happen within the system - sexual assaults, bullying, negligence, abuse of the public purse, etc. - but it's equally important to recognize tough reactive measures aren't going to stop bad behaviour, merely drive them underground.  The walls will become that much more opaque, exacerbating the problem.

 

Jian Ghomeshi became #ghomeshi because, for decades, no one intervened.  We can get made at him and demand justice, but what really matters is that we learn from how this happened with empathy (the understanding of emotion, not the enabling of it) and apply lessons across the board to prevent future Ghomeshis, and Patrick Brazeaus, and Mike Duffys and Dean del Mastros from happening.

 

This is the crie part - tell me if you've heard this refrain before.  The truth is that we don't know what we're doing.  We don't understand why we choose not to recognize the harm we often do.  Tough bosses who bully their employees often think they're doing them a favour; victims of harassment that don't take it are seen as disruptive to the culture instead of being victims or, worse, are applauded for standing up for themselves.

 

Remember the whole "women should golf" thing?  Ever heard the phrase "eat what you kill" in terms of business or "dog-eat-dog world" in relation to any sector?

 

It's laissez-faire culture; throw the kids in the deep end and reward the ones that survive, even if it's by forcing others under.  We have a culture that encourages aggressive competition, a focus on sales and those without power proving themselves to those with.  Yet we have a growing recognition of such power imbalances lending themselves towards abuse.

 

The two ends cannot hold.  If we want a survival-of-the-most-competitive, the very nature of that culture encourages abuses.  How else do you cull the weak?

 

Which is why, in my view, political culture keeps getting more and more toxic and will continue to do so while the status quo holds. 

 

We cannot expect the people within the system to be the sole progenitors of change; the toxicity of our political culture is like lead poisoning, but it's society as a whole that's put the lead in the pipe.

 

There is a desperate need for culture change in politics; through open government initiatives, there's even a movement to catalyze such change.  It cannot and will not happen in a climate of disaffection, bitterness and even rage; people on the inside rightly feel the need to protect themselves from the mob. 

 

We need to be more than a mob if we want change.  We have to be more than passive audiences or reactionary forces.

 

We cannot do this if we remain committed to passing judgment, placing blame and seeking vengeance.  Such does not move us forward.

 

There is a way to move out of our spiral down the drain of civility, but it cannot come without a deep recognition that the problem isn't external, but internal.

 

None of us are blame-free, nor are any of us strictly victims or perpetrators. 

 

Until we recognize this basic truth, none of us are free.

 

Social Behaviour

 

 

 

Over the course of ten hours, Hollaback recorded over one hundred instances of verbal street harassment. They note that the harassment spanned a number of neighborhoods and people of all backgrounds.

 

If you've not seen this video yet, you really should.

 

But don't stop there.  Take the basic premise - observing behaviour in public spaces, looking for patterns - and apply it in your own day.  You'll be very, very surprised at what you see.

 

The Objectivists/libertarians out there like to say that there is no such thing as society, just rational actors transacting for personal gain.  The more freedom they have - from the state, from taxation, of speech, etc. - the more able they are to be rational.

 

It's a confabulated notion that works in the movies but not so much in real life.  In real-world scenarios, people aren't rational - they're rarely conscious of much of what they do.  Little glances, conversations about private topics held in public spaces, cutting in front of others because of a failure to recognize them/an impulsive need to get ahead, even at the inconvenience of others - the list goes on. 

 

Stigmatization plays a big part of this behaviour.  We look at the world in terms of what it means to us, and react accordingly.  You can tell a lot about people by what they fear, what they show interest in, what they ignore.  Does a certain character not notice a homeless person, while another might see them and react with discomfort, or disgust, or with empathy?

 

What about a black kid on the subway?

 

We make rapid-fire judgments because that's what we're genetically programmed to do.  We're animals, like any other, led by forces not consciously in our control.  Thought comes later, if at all.  This isn't a judgment - just an observation.

 

Just remember - you're not a species apart, whether you feel superior or inferior or completely disconnected from others.  We're all the same, all with variations on the same limitations.

 

When we're conscious of this - and when we consciously seek to build and exercise discipline - then we can start to gain control.