Facebook Ad

Well Informed: Implicit Bias test

I took the Harvard Implicit Bias test on Male and Female words with Career and Family. My result somewhat surprised me, because it's not the way I would have previously categorized myself. My result was this: "Your data suggest a strong automatic association for Male with Career and Female with Family."

Even though I work with several females and I have no problem with women working, I was raised in a traditional conservative home where my father worked and my mother stayed home, which is probably where my implicit bias came from. 

However, despite this revelation of my implicit bias, it does not mean I can't choose to look past it. While the test indicated that I have a "strong automatic" implicit bias against women with careers, I laud women in the workplace and I personally believe we'd have a lot less problems as a world if we had more women leaders. This is part of the reason I voted for Hillary Clinton. Some of my political heroes are women like Margaret Thatcher and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

It's no secret America as a whole has a implicit bias to women in the workplace. With American women only being paid 80 percent of what men of the same occupation are being paid, the U.S. is ranked as the 47th best country for women to work. Those are embarrassing statistics. But it is a problem that is fixable. 

After the genocide in Uganda, it was a tough time to be a woman in that country because of all the violence and extremely conservative views on women's role in the workplace and in in government. Women didn't even have the right to vote in Uganda before 1980. Since then, laws were signed to give more rights to women in Uganda and increase diversity in the government. Long story short, women now make up 35 percent of Uganda's parliament. 

If Uganda can turn on a dime and allow so many new opportunities to women in such a short amount of time, the U.S. can do the same. It would take passing policies like placing a minimum on the amount of women who are to serve in government positions, and enacting laws to enforce workplace diversity. It would take some time, but I believe the U.S. can move toward reducing this implicit bias against women in careers that I have, according to the implicit bias test. 

On the Media: Unreal

The top story in this week's "On the Media" was about Steve Bannon's rise to power in the media world with Breitbart News. Knowing it's strong right-wing slant, it has been easy for me lately to disavow any article posted on social media from Breitbart News. However, this story about the history of Breitbart News and how it's shaped politics in this last election was eye-opening to me. 

Breitbart News, while openly an ultra-conservative news site, is not one of the websites that is known for perpetrating fake news. The podcast episode talked about how Steve Bannon started Breitbart News after being frustrated with the "mainstream media's" reluctance to cover any corruption claims with the Clinton's during Bill Clinton's presidency. There were lots of conspiracy theories and opinions about how the Clintons were corrupt and mishandling money, but through Breitbart News, Steve Bannon started a platform to investigate the stories about the Clintons. 

Eventually, according to the podcast, Breitbart News became an avenue for legitimate journalists at bigger "mainstream media" newspapers to learn and also investigate the stories about the Clintons. 

Breitbart News now touts itself as being a place to show the hypocrisy in the media and in politics. While Breitbart often uses exaggerated click-bait headlines and content to attract alt-right readers, most if not all of their stories are based on fact, which is still commendable at this time while social media is being pummelled by outright fake news right now. 

The podcasters interviewed Josh Green, who covers politics for Bloomberg News. In October 2015, Green wrote an article on Bloomberg News about Steve Bannon entitled "This Man Is the Most Dangerous Political Operative in America." Long before Bannon was a household name like it now, Green wrote about the history of Bannon and why he's so dangerous to the fabric of "mainstream" American politics and the establishment.

In his article, Green writes: 

"To succeed, Bannon will need to activate the anger and disgust with cronyism that’s as powerful among supporters of Sanders as it is among fans of Trump. In Tallahassee, as GAI’s phone keeps ringing, the vehicle for achieving this is clear. Editors and reporters at prominent magazines and newspapers, including ones that had passed when approached with Clinton Cash revelations, are calling to ask when the next salvo will arrive—and might they arrange an exclusive?For many, the answer will be yes. 
'We’re going to go to the investigative units, not the political reporters, and just give them the stuff,' says Bannon. 'We have faith they’ll take the stories and do the additional reporting.'"  

Steve Bannon has launched a war on the establishment and by investigating the "conspiracy theory" stories about the Clintons, Jeb Bush, and the other former establishment juggernauts. By giving this content to the investigative journalists, Bannon has hurt the establishment far more than any attacks from political opponents could do.

Bannon, through Breitbart News, is part of the reason Donald Trump is now the President-elect because of this slam campaign against the establishment he's achieved from harnessing the anger from working-class white America.

 

Facebook page insights

Here are the insights for my most recent posts on my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/spencerricksnews/

Recognizing Default Responses

Default responses drive everything that I do. While I don't always realize it, I have certain responses to certain things I see or hear. For example, when I am in a large group of people, or when I'm trying to impress someone, I have a different persona or facade that I assume. But it goes beyond that.

I don't like to think I stereotype certain individuals, but it definitely happens. For example, in St. George, when I see an older, white male wearing conservative clothes, I automatically assume that man is part of the "Mormon elite" and is someone who may be ignorant and support Donald Trump. I come from Seattle, where diversity is much more common. I have Muslim and Mexican friends, so coming to St. George where there is so many people of the same culture (white Mormons), it automatically places barriers between me and these individuals here. 

It is the same way with clothes. For example, if I see someone wearing a hoodie and saggy pants, my default response would be to distance myself from that individual. I don't see myself as a racist person in any definition of the word, but I realize I may have default responses of implicit bias against other races that are different than my own. I try to prevent this by making friends with people from other cultures and learning as much as I can.

Default responses are more than just reflects, but we can fight default responses by forcing ourselves to be mindful, critical of ourselves, and always trying to learn about others' points of views. 

Terrorism and Tribalism

Aarhus, Denmark

With terrorism growing worldwide, it has become a new issue for world leaders to tackle with. It is not a binary issue like wars have historically been.  Countries can't declare war on a terrorist group, because that only feeds into their terrorist group's narrative.

For example, if you use the phrase "radical Islamic terror" or declare war on "jihadists," you are only giving the terrorist group means to grow and expand their rhetoric. As Shadman Bashir explained in his lecture in class on Nov. 2, terrorism is about sending a political message and "media is the oxygen" feeding terrorism. So how do you cut back on terrorism? Don't give the terrorists what they want by confirming there is a war waging against their way of life. Instead, give the people in lands occupied by terrorism a means to be educated on the real issues and allow terrorists a way to amnesty. This is not radical--it has been proven to work.

In a town called Aarhus, Denmark, extremism has started to grow and the young men of the town were leaving in droves to join ISIS. Instead of harsh penalties against the young men for attempting to leave and surveilling mosques, they made it clear that the young men were welcome back home, where they could be given help reintegrating back into society. The ex-suspected terrorists receiving help with going back to school, finding an apartment, meeting with a psychiatrist or a mentor, or whatever they needed to fully integrate back into society. The "Aarhus model" of dealing with terrorism has been called the "hug a terrorist" program by the media and has been harshly criticized.

But it has been proven to work.

As reported on the episode "Flip the script" on the NPR podcast, "Invisibilia,"  "since the initial exodus of young people to ISIS, very few have left from Aarhus for Syria, even when traffic from the rest of Europe was spiking. Last year, in 2015, it was just one person."

The podcast brings up the point that the model in Aarhus is precarious though. "One terrorist attack in Aarhus could undo much of the work that has been done." But the opportunity to save a young man's future makes this program worth it. 

On the other hand, politicians like Donald Trump have taken a hard stance on terrorism. Trump has said he will declare war on ISIS, block Muslim immigration to the U.S., and carpet bomb parts of Syria and Iraq where terrorism has taken hold. 

Trump's plan is not unique. It has been a talking point of the Republican Party and other politicians around the world for years. However, it is only out of fear and doesn't do anything to solve the problem. What we need is sane, preventative measures to give terrorists a path back to society instead of declaring war on their religion.