“It’s indisputable that there’s a real pay gap. People can argue about how big, but that’s almost besides the point, The point is that every woman, every girl deserves to get paid what they’re worth.”
These are words by Sheryl Sandberg, taken from the Huffington Post, looking only on the year, not day, it had been five years ago. I am wondering if this is about a modern form of slavery and trafficking? Is payment about worth, even value of people in monetarised form? The difference is today’s deference of women: in old slave societies “owners”, the previous slave owner had been paid; Sandberg proposes to pay the slaves themselves. Hummmm, enslave yourself as alternative to wage work? Or is it just the same?
Surely an interesting question, most appropriate for the 8th of March, the International Women’s day.
A different point – as matter of a different chapter in the same book. In a brief note, titled
(even) the IWD (Institute of the German Economy) contends that inequality is going far beyond the gender pay gap, engraved in the entity and the expectations:
Although an attractive basic salary is at the top of the employers’ wish lists for both sexes, women in the various disciplines have on average significantly lower expectations than men in this respect.
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.
so far Mr. Mill, in his book Utilitarismus, published in 1863- Now, as morals and ethics are frequently employed – especially by those who feel a bit like Socrates himself – I am wondering if Socrates would possibly ask:
What is if the satisfied human actually is becoming aware of the fact that s/he is a “pig”, in the metaphorical sense? A being that established this satisfaction on deception, wrong-doing, bribery or simply not sufficiently questioning the facts … just a moron …?
Indeed, harping on about principles, resulted in a disastrous consequences.The teaser of the article reads in my translation as follows:
sueddeutsche.de Economy 27 February 2019, 05:18 Hartz IV Job centres spend 60 million euros to collect 18 million • Job centers must also reclaim small amounts from Hartz IV recipients. This causes an enormous administrative effort. • In 2018, a total of 18 million euros in small amounts of up to 50 euros were reclaimed. However, this cost around 60 million euros. This is shown by new figures available to SZ. • Reclaims are made when job centres discover that they have transferred too much to Hartz IV recipients. The Federal Agency has long demanded a de minimis limit for smaller amounts.
But isn’t this exactly against the principles? Yes and no – as there are two principles: the one is about what we learn from an article in the guardian?
They shop frugally, use credit cards rarely and save up to a third of a property’s value before applying for a mortgage.
There is another, though in some way linked, principle: discipline and discipline-enforcing zero-tolerance policies – honoring the cent is the ultimate rule, even if it costs a fortune … and even if it for the price of self-denial. Looking at conservatism, it sometime too simple to reduce things on black and white – they are simply deep, dark black.
Another instrument of the specter is the use of various schemes of ranking, awarding and the like …There are different dimensions of policies that are tightly strangulating what may be called “freedom of academia”
(may be called so, as this terminology had been abused by conservative and reactionary politicians in Germany against the student movement end of the 1960s (see Hans-Abrecht Koch: Professorale Selbstbehauptung in turbulenter Zeit; see also Review of Nikolai Wehrs, Protest der Professoren. Der «Bund Freiheit der Wissenschaft» in den 1970er Jahren Alessandro Stoppoloni (in Italian); also: Martina Steber: Die Hüter der Begriffe. Politische Sprachen des Konservativen in Großbritannien und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945-1980 – available via liegen.io)
Hammond was recently asked for his reaction to a prediction that a computer would win a Pulitzer Prize within 20 years. He disagreed. It would happen, he said, in five.
The other passage:
Last year at a small conference of journalists and technologists, I asked Hammond [Narrative Science’s CTO and cofounder, Kristian Hammond] to predict what percentage of news would be written by computers in 15 years. At first he tried to duck the question, but with some prodding he sighed and gave in: “More than 90 percent.
What actually is frightening of the following little story? Sure, for many the outlook of loosing their employment but we may consider that today’s standards – such as the Pulitzer Prize and many others – aren’t as noble as so many ranking-fed moneybags propose. Again, many things to be said and discussed, though for the moment only one, quoting Felix Stalder:
“iUsers are only able to evaluate search results pragmatically; that is, in light of whether or not they are helpful in solving a concrete problem. In this regard, it is not paramount that they find the best solution or the correct answer but rather one that is available and sufficient.”
Estratto di: Stalder, Felix. “The Digital Condition.” Polity Press, 2018
Indeed, everybody gets the Prize he or she deserves – it also means that at some stage the winning material will be self-assessed by an algorithm (a step further than the currently already ‘automated review’) by – finally that would be the ‘peer’ for the review. Anything new? May be, but may be not so much. Rancière, writing about post-democracy, states that it
is the government practice and conceptual legitimization of a democracy after the demos, a democracy that has eliminated the appearance, miscount and dispute of the people.
Just in time – and one could say: time does actually not matter. One of “my” universities sent a newsletter today – via e-mail, may be that this is the reason for calling it ‘connection’. It is arriving from one of the Chinese universities I worked at, ne of the headlines reading (in the section Education)
Nobel Prize Inspiration Initiative kicks off at … with Michael Young
right away followed by an article titled
… establishes International Business School
Now I dare to wonder to which extent revolutions, also and perhaps especially in science are initiated by a spark, a genius – often not (easily) understood, daring to make a step further – nit fearing being possibly wrong … – of course, this is a slippery field. We in China and we protestants in Europe know, for different reasons: it is all about working hard – in the east to serve society, in the west to build a house, plant a tree and have a sun (so the sayings go, standards set for male). And it is – nolens volens – working in society, being, existing , living in society and (as Marx stated) even individualising in society. And still there is this moment of genius – not only needed to be awarded any of these high ranking symbols but being awarded by some form and degree of independence. One does not have to agree with Kant in all the facets, one can laugh about his habits – but one has to accept the challenge he out in front of each of us: consciously living, accepting responsibility, only with this being able to go beyond the Kantian individualism, and doing what we do: making our own history, even if we have to accept that we do not do it entirely according to our own ‘simple individual will’.
Such awards make only sense if this is acknowledged and academic work does not degenerate to mere International Business …
The latter is exactly what we see with the entire reviewing, and new attitudes to awarding – at least as danger of the massification of ranked publishing: mass, numbers, formal perfection counts – quality control as engaged dispute amongst peers is replaced by checking the reflection of formal coherence – relativity in terms of E = M2cannot be seen, and Schroedinger’s cat will be known as dead or alive, no option for the beast to be … really Schroedinger’s cat.
Another issue with reviews – algorithmised or not, or another expression: Finally any reviewer – human or not – can only review what is familiar.
Or it is about resistance
and getting engaged in debates …we, each of us, has to decide
wishes at the end of the one and beginning of another semester I
May we gain the strength, to acknowledge the limits of our wisdom and judgement without accepting the consequences arising from there – this, instead of being tempted to think we know everything, and even worse, knowing everything better than those who are directly concerned.