Our Double Standard of Morality

Published at the Libertines Pub, Hong Kong

As probably the most “right” member in a suspected Commie group, I can understand why decriminalization of drugs sounds an attractive idea. As you know, some of my mates claim themselves to be musicians. Music without drugs is like French films without sex scenes and the banking industry without overpriced chain store coffee. Ray Charles, Rolling Stones and Amy Winehouse may not have produced such genius music with substance had they not relied on some substance in some way. In fact, thanks to cocaine, an ex-fiancee of a rock star, Kate Moss, remains as a fashion icon for decades with her never fully conscious and skinny look.

However, as appealing as the idea can be, the chance of success is destined to be doomed. It may work in Europe, but never in my hometown the High-Tech Village.

Why? Because we Villagers have no problems in showing our double standard of morality, as soon as it involves a member of our family.

We don’t mind Tiger Woods cheating because he’s just being human. But if our husbands and boyfriends cheat? We want to give death penalty.

We fancy chasing jail baits because what they are hinting is just consensual sex. But if they are our daughters? We want to lock either them or the boys up.

On Gender Equality at Workplace

Published at the Libertines Pub, Hong Kong

Let me make myself clear first in case someone suspects I’m a man: I hate that when women are paid less than men for the same kind of work. I hate that when people don’t take young women seriously because they bother to dress and groom nicely for work (to look “professional” somewhat means you have to desexualize yourself by wearing dark trouser suits and trimming your hair short, or at least putting it up). I also hate that when senior male executives make use of their position to pressurize their junior female colleagues into contributing to their sexual rejuvenation, be it faking laughs for their lame jokes (Ha-ha-ha), an “innocent” dinner for two or something more. And thanks to my career confidence, I’m always able to put up an indifferent blank face to such kind of invitations. Life is too short to worry about whether someone has crossed the line.

However, to assess gender equality by way of counting the number of men and women in certain industry, or in certain level of management, often becomes a misplacement of fact and value judgment. Take the construction industry for example, it’s a global phenomenon that male construction workers and engineers are far more than their female counterparts. Does it mean the industry has been barring equally qualified women from the industry because of their sex? What about it’s just a fact? Just a fact that qualified women for construction work happen to be less than men. Same applies to scientists and footballers. Feminists’ approach to place value judgment on the head count and conclude that males have been dominating the industry and scaring off women is like saying the drawing machine of Mark Six favours the particular 6 numbers and discriminates against the other 43.

In addition, what about women are just not that into certain industries, instead of being dominated or suppressed or enslaved by patriarchy as claimed by feminists?