The topic my readers most want me to address is something calledmen’s rights. (See previous post.) This is a surprisingly good topic. It’s dangerous. It’s relevant. It isn’t overdone. And apparently you care.
Let’s start with the laundry list.
Nothing to say here, by reading the introduction one could not tell what is to follow.

According to my readers, examples of unfair treatment of men include many elements of the legal system, the military draft in some cases, the lower life expectancies of men, the higher suicide rates for men, circumcision, and the growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women.

Still nothing, I actually agree with all the above (although women do serve in the military and fight wars in many, many countries not to mention clitoridectomy in the “barbaric” countries where it is performed as opposed to “civilised” America and last but not least the lower life expectancy of men who work their entire lives while women stay home all day after having given birth and are “naturally” taking care of children).

You might add to this list the entire area of manners. We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?

Yes, I can. In fact, most Scandinavians can. These countries are closer to equality of sexes than anywhere I had been and seen before. Does this mean that it is the women’s or the men’s fault that American culture not only preserves this kind of behaviour, but also keeps feeding it with stereotypes on advertisements and the constant bombardment of beauty standards both for men (as to what to like) and to women (as to what to do to be liked)? Is it women’s or men’s fault that women are put (and like being put) in the feeble, protected and cared-for part of society where being a ditz is cute and even feminin and men feel reassured and safe by such a behaviour?

Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.

I do not see this at all. You mean in public male behaviour is discouraged? Men in long-term relationships do not swear, curse, fart, get drunk, fight, kill, make dirty jokes etc. in their homes with their girlfriends, wives, boyfriends, partners in general? And I assume that these are the behaviours you are talking about since these are the only ones I can retrieve from the the three fields you suggest above. Why are these male behaviours to begin with? Are these “naturally” male behaviours? Or have they been entrenched into society and culture as identifiers of the sex in question?

Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.

Inequities? Women are more than men globally. How is this an inequity? This is merely demographics.

How about the higher rates for car insurance that young men pay compared to young women? Statistics support this inequity, but I don’t think anyone believes the situation would be legal if women were charged more for car insurance, no matter what the statistics said.

According to a previous paragraph, men are pushed by cultural status quo to behave in a specifically “male” way. They are supposed to (well, in combination with out-of-control hormone flow) to act silly and manly, get drunk and drive to prove they are no chickens to their other male friends, dare each other etc. What is an insurance company to do? Reckless driving is more common in young male drivers. Women on the other hand are passive drivers to the point of stupid and completely unintuitive, which also makes them prone to accidents – remember that it is both high speed and low speed that can create accidents, so I will give you this one Adams!

Women will counter with their own list of wrongs, starting with the well-known statistic that women earn only 80 cents on the dollar, on average, compared to what men earn for the same jobs. My readers will argue that if any two groups of people act differently, on average, one group is likely to get better results. On average, men negotiate pay differently and approach risk differently than women.

Why is that? Is it in men’s nature? They just happen to do that because they were just born knowing how to bargain while women do not have that skill… Being a big part of the culture world, does culture even mean anything to you Adams? Yes, they do approach risk differently than women (that’s why car insurances are higher for men) but I think that the same statistic will also show you that the bargaining for a woman’s pay even STARTS lower. Check it again…

Women will point out that few females are in top management jobs. Men will argue that if you ask a sample group of young men and young women if they would be willing to take the personal sacrifices needed to someday achieve such power, men are far more likely to say yes. In my personal non-scientific polling, men are about ten times more likely than women to trade family time for the highest level of career success.

Fine, fine, I will leave megalomania and the gorilla-style chest-bumping-for-success to men. You are right, men do want to be up there. It is also in their nature and it does not lie in the fact that they are being interviewed by a man (solidarity forever), or women being interviewed by men in contrast to placing women to interview women and asking them if they want to reach for the stars… I will half-give you this one, ok?

Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights:

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.

Pussies? That is a very interesting choice of insult. I take it you do not mean kittens and I have the feeling you used the specific word on purpose. Now, if a man is called “dick” it is offensive, but not as offensive as being called “cunt” or (in this case) “pussy”. Feminising a man is a great insult and I do not need to tell you this, you do not need a lesson from me, I am sure. To compare, hint or straight out relate a man to anything feminine is after all these years something striking a man’s ego like no other! Of course, no one would call a woman a “dick”, but they would still aim to insult her by calling her a ”cunt” or a “pussy”. Insults feel graver when female. And do not mistake this as empowering, try and see where this is on all aspects and levels of society and culture, how far deep and back it goes instead of uncritically accepting it. Question it, and then accept it!

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

The only thing I can think of saying here is: You mum should have exercised her birthright and flushed you down the drain. Seriously. She wasted so many years of her life raising… this? I guess someone should have beaten the sense out of her too.

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you’re still crying about your pawn when you’re having your way with the queen, there’s something wrong with you and it isn’t men’s rights.

Are we talking about sex? I think we are talking about sex now and I have to say that in all mammals it is the female that will choose to spread its legs (and the male that will rape it if it won’t) to whomever she chooses. Read it, it is common knowledge (what? too hysterically feministic, huh? I guess you are right…)!

Fairness is an illusion. It’s unobtainable in the real world. I’m happy that I can open jars with my bare hands. I like being able to lift heavy objects. And I don’t mind that women get served first in restaurants because I don’t like staring at food that I can’t yet eat.

Unfairness is a reality. It will continue to be a reality as long as people do nothing and swallow whatever they are served uncritically. Even if they do give it the time of day and think about it for a while and then realise that it is too big for them and why bother, it is quite clear that these people are not really involved in the well-being of society as a whole but only after their own ease of mind. And yes, this indeed is the way of the real world and we are told to accept it, we are told that it is good to be individualistic. Of course, if we step out of our hotel room and resort when we travel the world we will see that not all societies are in fact this way and what we thought was the real world was only our microcosm. Adams thinks like the jokes Europeans always say about Americans, that Americans think they are the only country in the world and their reality is the only one there is. Scott Adams certainly thinks this way I believe, and out of altruism and concern for his mental state I would strongly recommend some time out of that resort when he takes trips abroad.

If you’re feeling unfairly treated because women outlive men, try visiting an Assisted Living facility and see how delighted the old ladies are about the extra ten years of pushing the walker around.  It makes dying look like a bargain.

Hehe, good one…!

I don’t like the fact that the legal system treats men more harshly than women. But part of being male is the automatic feeling of team. If someone on the team screws up, we all take the hit. Don’t kid yourself that men haven’t earned some harsh treatment from the legal system. On the plus side, if I’m trapped in a burning car someday, a man will be the one pulling me out. That’s the team I want to be on.

Women are far more empathetic than men. A man is more likely to say “nah, screw it” than a woman in times of distress such as the one mentioned above. Plus, I have to say that one of the first images I had of Denmark on the first day I got off the bus to get to my dorm was a construction crew of men and women working on a building construction site. Big ladies and big gentlemen. All equal, all doing the same chores (must sound like hell to Adams). If you are ever in a car accident and a woman like that passes by, you should refuse her help. Just because she is on the opposite team, no other reason.

I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people.  A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don’t care about 90% of what is happening around us.

And you are part of this mass, this herd of sheep, you do not stand out in the slightest!

One of the challenges X is called to face is the nature of each institution and its unique character. Aspects such as hierarchies, bureaucracy, workflow and types of projects are different from organisation to organisation. Each one has its own procedures of dealing with their needs, with publishing public tenders and outsourcing. Here, tenders and procurements are key words which define the very nature of this challenge. Having to customize the phrasing and layout of tender proposals according to each organisation’s standards requires experience and efficiency, timely response and professionalism to respond to unique requests. Therefore, X is called to customize its response to fit each of those clients’ needs. Every case is an individual case and X finds itself re-designing and re-organising its approach when dealing with different organisations.

A second challenge also comes from the nature of the clientele and has to do with time frames. Usually, institutions and organisations have to deal with often encumbering bureaucracies which cost time and money, both for themselves and for their partners. It can sometimes be quite unexpected as to when an organisation will respond, how long it will take for a project to finally initiate and last but not least the issue of deadlines is essential to ensure trust with the clientele, therefore creating a bond with X. This basically means that at one point there maybe low workload and the next the company has to be extremely organised and efficient in order to cope with an overload of approvals and green lights to initiate projects.

Along those lines, it is also very challenging to maintain reputation. Once a company like X has notorious clients, others are almost sure to follow. This clientele requires high standards that can both be expressed with the physical outcome, the product or the reputation of the company. If an institution sees and recognises other clients as reliable, then it is more likely to begin a partnership with some level of trust and high-end expectations from the very beginning. It is a challenge to maintain the reputation, as it may well be a significant part of staying afloat in the market.

When dealing with organisations worldwide, distance is an issue. Clients need to be reassured there will be no delay in delivery and that the quality of the project will remain impeccable. It is up to the company to do its best and convince the client that it has the experience and the means to do so. As has been observed, distance can be a turn-off or a point of scepticism for the clients. X has managed to face this challenge by spreading its offices all over the world, thus making communications easier and with the use of worldwide partnerships, therefore eliminating distances. Personal meetings with the company’s CEO work as a catalyst when it comes to convincing the client and becoming a living example of the elimination of distances.

As today’s world is getting more and more environmentally aware and concerned, it is important to stay up-to-date and understand the concern on the clients’ behalf. Combined with the above-mentioned unique character and the need for customising responses according to each client’s specific needs, X also needs to create a response to the clients soft values and become something more original and therefore, more necessary. So far, this is a challenge met, as X does stand out compared to others exactly because of its expression of concern for the main issues that most of the organisation it deals with are concerned with. Surely there are several competitors for X, yet through this expression of soft values, X has been able to differentiate itself from other companies.

Challenges such as global financial crises, political situations are challenges that can only be met by attempting to flexibly re-invent X in order to create new solutions for clients. The challenge here is the trade-off: what will X have to sacrifice in order to remain in the market either in the short or long-term? The planning needs to be careful since challenges like these are unpredictable and X needs to keep a strong look-out for the moves of the competitors, both as threat and inspiration. For any company, it is essential to be precise in the planning and make the right choices and the right sacrifices in order to be consistent with its values and clients. If for example, a financial crisis demands for a drop in prices so that a client will remain a client, then the choice has to be made carefully. If an administration changes, then it is important to recognise and quickly react to this change, offering new solutions, changing the marketing language to suit both X and the client.

They have also made a mess with their website organisation. Their tabs are a total mess. Here too, they were so eager to promote new services, that they lost the main point: that this company is so special that it can sell itself. All one needs to do is a careful and long-term prioritisation of information and… TO STICK WITH IT! Surely, new services need to be communicated and promoted but never to the expense of the overall value of the company, especially when it is the value and the mission that is the most distinctive characteristic.

I have worked on a schedule until Christmas and I have prioritised tasks in the form of a flowing story telling: The first phase involves study and research where I go through all of the company’s material: their material and their products, books and reports, banners and journals they have designed for their clients. The outcome would be the schedule, as the needs will have been identified. The second phase derives from strategic design and planning. Firstly through analysing the company’s values, history, mission, expectations, its past with its former and current clients and secondly by listing potential clients, their values and expectations, their graphic providers so far. This way I believe to find the common points, the places where the company can really sell itself and the client can identify its own values expressed! The outcome of this phase will be a new and improved graphic identity that communicates intuitively (through image and texture) the values of the company and its approach to projects. For the third phase I will finally (hehe) get to my formal duties as a Design & Communication Officer. I will start building up new clientele while supporting and consulting the current. From that point on, given that the new and improved graphic identity will provide all the information needed at a first glance, I will solely occupy my time with this. Improving presentation methods and presentation visual material, creating gadgets and presents as a means of promotion etc.

What I am thinking, and maybe it is totally pointless and silly to even discuss it, is the fact that no one seems to comment on the corresponding oppression the more religious muslim men have. They have to take care of it, the beard is a symbol of their level of faith and it is a visual sign which communicates to the people around them which god they believe in.It might even be a pain and headache for some men to grow this beard due to skin irritations, trimming, washing etc. Why is it that the fact that women hiding, concealing their hair is a form of oppression and religious dictation that is anti-feminist or I-don’t-know-what, but when it comes to men showing and exposing their “religiocity” it is ok, it is ignored, nothing-wrng with that… I believe these are both forms of the same kind of visually communicating ones beliefs, yet it is the western ideas that allow beards as men are free to grow their hair as they please (women are preferred with as less hair as possible) and view hats as an accessory, making the head-scarf something so foreign and unacceptable…

Just a random thought…

This amazing-to-a-Greek phenomenon is everyday life to a Dane. This trust is also tightly related to the Danish welfare system (although health is going downhill lately, but that is a different thing). Once people know that the system takes care of them, they loosen up a lot. They have the time and the energy to shift their focus on more social aspects of their lives, apart from struggle and putting the bread on the table. It is a society whose people are very close to each other and they trust each other enough to be ready at any time to cooperate with one another. This is reflected on their entire society’s structure; Danes leave it to their government to take care of things and they trust them with it. Surely, from time to time there are protests, but in general, they trust the system to work as it is presented to be working.

Way, way south it is the exact opposite. The Balkan peninsula finds it very difficult to rest and its people have been looking over their shoulder ever since they can remember. Once in downtown Athens, a man has to move his wallet from the back pocket of his trousers to the front. Greek public services require paper upon paper upon paper to ensure the identity of a person in order to perform even the most mundane transactions. The government is under question even as a voter’s hand is placing the envelope in the ballot box; everything is prejudged to be corrupt.

This is due to lack of trust. The Greek chaos, the lack of respect and politeness in everyday life (whether that is at an interpersonal level or from state-to-citizen) is a reflection of the deeply rooted lack of trust Greeks have. Greeks are rude and relatively cynical people from what I have observed. I believe that people treat each other just as their government treats them. The infrastructure of the Greek system is poorly planned, big cities are dirty, flats are being built with no consideration of aesthetics or respect for urban living, poor and old people are marginalised and don’t even get me started with the issue of racism. One thing I personally could not possibly stand and had to leave Greece as soon as possible, was that when looking for work, the AUTOMATIC reaction of the employer was to try and lower all of the statutory rights, from basic salary to sexual harassment definition. This creates the vicious circle of one not trusting the other and because of this lack of trust, one is trying to overtake the other, scam the other, usually by illegal means. Hence, the crazy amount of corruption in Greece.

I found the aspect of trust an epiphany when it comes to analysing these two societies. It is a very important reason why one society has taken one path than the other. I will think about this topic a bit more and follow-up on the news from both countries. I will try and support this belief better in time…

Just keeping myself busy as much as I can.

Go’ sommer.

I find this fascinating. How subtly and unconsciously the most trivial of objects have an impact on our psychology and our movement patterns. The fact that some of these objects came to be symbols of entire cities is also something overwhelming.

LEts say for a minute that I have a letter I need to post in my hand. I go out to the street look around for a mail box. The mail box can be 200m away and with my bad eyesight I will probably only be able to see it as ared spot far, far away. I immediately know that this is a mail box. No other box, container or urban object is red around here, in this city. I know that this is the mail box I will need to use to send a letter, the mailing service’s object to communicate a function to me.

What is this field I will have to study further? Is it semiotics? Cognitive science? Sociology? Communication? Design theory? All of the above?

And how can I use it to create something useful, not just a gadget, but to communicate with pictures the specific actions. Not emotions, to ameliorate the stimulation-interpretation-action sequence?

Fascinating…