As the people in my life know, I believe in equality so strongly that it can come across as downright ruthless. I insist upon equality in all places, all situations, and on all levels.  I believe in equality for all, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation, income, religion, country of origin, or preferred Captain of the Enterprise. ^[1]

I demand equality. I insist on equality. Nothing but total equality is acceptable to me and I will never stop fighting for it.

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Sounds highly admirable. In fact, I am sure to some it sounds like I am bragging. And I am too honest to deny that bragging is part of it.

But mostly, it’s about telling you what ruthless equality means in a social context : it means I will stand up for absolutely anybody who is being unfairly and unjustly. It doesn’t matter who they are or what they believe. It doesn’t matter what their social station is. And it doesn’t matter what society thinks of people like them.

Still sounds good, right?

But what that means in practice is that I’ll defend the rights of an openly racist white trash wife beater with the same ferocity as I would defend the rights of a black single mother on welfare. I’ll defend the rights of a rich man who is being railroaded by the system with the same passion as I would a poor person who is getting screwed. And I’ll defend a man’s right to be treated with dignity and respect as vehemently as I’ll a woman’s.  It is all the same fight to me.

And people don’t like that. People expect you to choose sides and identify with their side and remain in ideological lockstep with said group. When you refuse to do so, you make them nervous. They desperately want to pigeonhole you as either One of Us or One of Them, and when you choose instead to remain a completely independent free age who always sides with the people he thinks are right, they become upset and blame you for their distress.

That’s how reasonable neutrality can get you hated by all sides of an issue. In fact, two opposing sides will unite to fight you because the one thing they agree on is that they certainly don’t want an asshole like me injecting logic, reason, and fairness into the battle and ruining everybody’s fun.

And I’m kind of bitter about that.

Nevertheless, there is one issue about which I am openly sexist and make no excuses for it, and that is the subject of international relief efforts.

For God’s sake, give the money to the women.

The men will waste it on whatever teenage level social activities have become their substitute for true manhood. Usually this will take the general form of “drinking with their friends” and will easily eat up the entire family income and leave the kids to starve.

I have seen it happen. I grew up in an area with chronic high unemployment. I have seen the way it can utterly wreck a man and leave him in a perpetual frozen adolescence that inevitably turns into frustration, rage, and alcoholism.

These men are suffering because every instinct is pushing them towards leaving their “youth” phase behind them and moving into their “father” phase… but society denies them the chance because it has no jobs for them.

And I feel for these guys. Both our instincts and our societal programming make it clear that a man has no go prove himself to be a “good hunter” in order to become a man, and they can’t get there.

Nevertheless, because of the state they are in, they cannot be trusted with money (or whatever is passing for it). Give the money to the man-child who is in deep pain for reasons he does not understand and he will spend it on whatever it takes to make him feel better, even if it’s just his position in his peer group.

In the West, this usually involves liquor and other vices. You might as well give the money directly to the local bars.

Give the money to the women, however, and they will spend it on the kids. And not frivolously either. They will spend it on the foundations of decent society, like education, good nutrition, personal safety, and opportunities for their kids.

Now ideally, coupled with that should be a very robust program of employment for all. That means hiring people to do things instead of just handing them the cash. Meaningful labour is a right, as far as I am concerned, and the government should take that to heart and make it their business to get that labour for every citizen.

If you want to help families who are suffering because of local poverty and unemployment, the absolute best thing you can do for them is hire them.

Let them earn their money. When a person is hired, it confers dignity to them, and says to society “this person has worth”. When they have meaningful labour to do, all those unnamed frustrations in their lives cease to be and they stop resenting the society that both denies them a job and has contempt for them for being unemployed.

And it would give young people something they desperately need : a way to prove themselves. And in doing so, prove to themselves that they are real competent grown up people who deserve to have a seat at society’s grown up table instead of being fobbed off on the kiddie table like they will never grow up.

It doesn’t matter what, exactly, you hire them to do. Whether it’s stoop labour or office work, the important thing is that it demands something of them (so they can prove themselves), that it conveys the feeling of participation in society, and that it be visibly productive in a way people can relate to and thus give them what they need so badly, which is something to do with their lives.

Implemented correctly, and over a sufficient period of time, a program like this could turn a desolate backwater riddled with crime, teenage pregnancy, domestic abuse, and rampant drug problems into a happy, thriving community right out of the middle class’s domestic dream book.

The problem is lack of money in the area.

Bring money into the area.

And use that money in a way that produces the largest economic benefits to the region.

HIRE PEOPLE. And giving them a way to earn a living.

I will talk to you nice people again tomorrow.