BeyondTheMargins

As i promised earlier, i have no dearth of mind blowing stories to write about in rural north along with department experiences. However , there is just so much to write about that sometimes i wonder where to start. ! So i decided to start with a general humorous post about the Government and the types of people it deals with in general. I want to emphasize the fact, that although the nature of the job is high pressure, high stakes and involves making difficult decisions in a split of time, the employees of the department are blessed with a more erroneous, dark and sometimes unacceptable sense of humor. As a result, work includes, dealing with high stakes situations and having a great laugh with colleagues at lunch. It makes you feel hardy and also makes you feel like you can face the world. In this particular line of work, work brings employees much closer to each other than they are to their spouses at home.

However, i thought i would let everyone in on some general ‘trends’. First of all, the job of the department is to deal with people. This means as long as one is ‘alive’ in the western civilization, or the anglo saxon civilization, one will be under the watch of the child and family act and the criminal law statutes or its synonym and by virtue of it the corresponding department in place to carry out its regulation. In the quest of working with people, it is imperative that one will have the worlds most first hand experience in dealing with all kinds of people. The list is very broad and one’s neighborly grandmother who has known people all her life, cannot really compete. As a rule then the brand of the employee is people, in four dimensional vector spectrums.

Apart from that, government rep in general is a very made up thing. The government is an engine that pretends to be a friend to all, but almost always has an agenda at the same time, and also likes to maintain its public image…. this explains the general feeling of distrust. In essence. if you have a dispute with someone and the government becomes involved for any reason, then the government is likely to pretend to ‘befriend’ both the parties, invite both the parties to a ‘menage a trios’, and secretly screw both parties (if required). To add to the deception, there are lovely ‘right to information’ acts in place – that nobody really knows about or exercises in the first place. It is understandable that with such things in place, people are distrustful of involving themselves with the ‘greatest friend of everybody’ institution.

Although it is indeed never recommended to fight the government, however there is one thing that even the government is afraid of. …. .

Fighting couples – you heard that right. especially those embroiled in custody battles. This is the antidote to almost all of the pains of the public. Does that mean you should fight with your ex- spouse to get the government out of the way?…… funny thing is, this is not an advice that needs to be given, people almost always give in to primal forces. In such situation if there is a dependent involved, the government is almost always involved by virtue of a custody battle. The acrimonious couple hurl time wasting allegations which constantly need verification and leads to countless hours in court, wasting the courts time and also the time of the employees who ‘know that everything is false’ but must still do their diligence due to regulations in place as obligation. It means creating a load on the system, playing ball with the system, and clogging the pipe for real substantial cases to be dealt with….the vitriol can be such that even employees get sleepless nights, judges become grouchy and when one visits the court, the people at court eventually start having breakdowns and start making this face.

But who cares when powerful forces are at play? so the government has one method ….

we will use the analogue below. Two rackets, and one ball.

In the image above, you can understand the feuding couple as the ball in between and you can visualize the rackets as different designated areas of service of the government. It means when the torment unleashed by the duo becomes too much for the government (yes you heard that right – the government also has feelings and its limits), the government starts looking for ways to cunningly ‘transfer the file’ to another department. When this is enacted, tables are turned and the fighting couple must now adjust to the transfer of their file, the relocation to a different department, the adjustment with different counsels and managers, the logistical changes and they must deal with delays themselves due to the material cost of the transition. It is the governments way of saying “will you two shut up?”.

The above analogue of two rackets and a ball is so versatile that one can use it to explain almost ALL situations of a fighting couple that might enact. The permutations that happen with the analogue above are highly dependent on multiple factors, but 4 factors contribute the most to how the analogue plays out in real life. The demography and education levels of fighting couples is often the greatest contributor. We will use 4 players here in order of hierarchy as observed by experience going from the lowest to the highest- the average male, the average female, the sophisticated male and the sophisticated female. This is going from the least damaging to the most tiresome and challenging scenarios for the government.

The average males of society often have average educational backgrounds, are highly gender-rolled and masculinized, and are unaware of government policies and laws in place. the easiest scenario for the government is when the average male pairs with the sophisticated female. The sophisticated female is often more educated, more financially resourceful, more versed in government regulations and laws, and often wants a quick resolution more often than not. With the system already often leaning towards the female, this would is the easiest and smoothest scenario, which resolves rather quickly. The male, likely with lesser and minimal resources and, for lack of a better word, a matter of social pride not wanting to pick a beef with a highly resourceful female, almost always yields easily. In terms of custody battles, the male would often yield to an amicable solution, and things moved quickly to mutual joint arrangements. Normally, females in such scenarios, due to the power imbalance, dislike conflict. It is also likely to be noted that sophisticated females are the least likely to be seen with average males.

This brings us to our second scenario,

The average male pairing with an average female. This one gets a bit messy, but in a downgraded, monotonous and exhausting manner. The couple often resort to false allegations and mudslinging’s, but are not clever enough to know the workings of regulations and policies. this often leads to a clogging of the system with unnecessary banter and cases which need verification for the sake of, but the department knows are false. When the department attempts to clean its hands off and have files transferred, the couple often has strong ties to locations and is unable to transfer. Negotiations are longer and exhausting, and plenty of legal and social resources are utilized by the government in resolution. this is not something that is taken very seriously either, as most allegations and mudslinging are just too juvenile and are a waste of time.

In the third scenario, the sophisticated male pairs with an average female. The sophisticated male would be more resourceful, highly educated, richer, and well versed with the law and the system, whereas the female would not be. In almost 9 out of 10 scenarios, in high contrast to the scenario where the sophisticated female paired with the average male, the sophisticated male will almost always and most likely act like a bully. The female is likely to be bullied, and the department will invest heavily in providing resources, with the system already leaning towards the women. The male will have the tendency to get what he wants through coercion. In case of custody battles, the sophisticated male will carefully keep recordings and evidence to make every attempt to deem the mother unfit, either psychologically or physically, to gain custody. The female can be bullied via lawyers and litigation, and different unfair mediation tactics would be used. The government would almost always invest heavily in the female, trying to offer her legal advice, protection, and services. These cases usually last as long as the female is resilient enough towards coercion.

Which brings us to the final and most interesting scenario for the government. The sophisticated female pairing with a sophisticated male. In this scenario, the sophisticated male, knowing fully well that the system leans towards the left and that the female is not stupid, starts exhibiting somewhat ‘feminized’ behaviors. This includes crying in government offices, pretending to be the victim, painting the female as ‘crazy’ or ‘emotionally abusive’, pretending to be so ‘traumatized’ by the female that one is unable to set foot in the same premise, and being unable to ask for help from other people as a result of ‘psychological warfare’. The admission of psychological decimation and trauma through a female would often be an inadmissible thing for an average male due to strong gender roles, but for the sophisticated male it is of no such issue. The list is long and strange. We once had an accountant who was a Mensa (a member of high iq society) who came in and cried in the office for one hour and a half. Tissues were provided, and the receptionist consoled him on the way out the door, he even hugged her on the way out. The tedious hour and a half was a comprehensive performance of how his doctorate wife in biomedical engineering controlled him, checked his phones, humiliated him of his intellectual value while he packed lunch for her and the kids every single day before work. Records later revealed the case was concerning domestic violence perpetrated by him towards the wife, and gaining custody was an important motivation. The scenario would be very convincing to a first time employee or a regular person but the staff after years of experience often learn that if the performance goes on for any more than 30 minutes then it was time to sit back relax and watch and return to the files.

The female in such scenarios is highly resourceful but reserved and extremely cautious. Females being naturally cautious are aware of the manipulation and the badmouthing and maneuverer the field like a chess match with strategy and composure. All this while keeping a high border fenced watch from across the Warfield. Strangely so, the sophisticated female almost never shows up to the office for theatrics. The female here exhibits masculinized traits of strategy, calculatedness and attempts of leading the horse to the water to drink its putrid. Communication is by email professionally or via lawyers and becomes factual, while keeping everything private. The department here loses no resources at all; however, every allegation requires careful vetting, as nobody is trustworthy and neither one is stupid.

one can say, what is the moral of the story?

If the male is sophisticated and the female is not, expect coercion. If the male is sophisticated and the female is sophisticated as well, expect thoughtful mediation, tears, and strange happenings. This pattern does not occur if the female is sophisticated in any of the permutations.

These might be up to subjective interpretation but are an experience spanning over 300 plus cases in multiple scenarios of rich, poor, stupid, genius, educated, illiterate, fat, thin or simple and conniving. Needless to say if anybody wanted 2 cents, If my experience brought anything to the table, the best match for a Sophisticated female was an androgynous male with a triad of behaviors.

In the diary of a ceo with Steven Barlett,

One of the coveted guests an innovator, a 48 yr old male, mentioned he hired only females. Why? Because every time he hired a male, he would proceed to compete with him, eventually learn all his company secrets, then leave the company and set up his own company to try and compete with him. He felt backstabbed, so he just started hiring females. Apparently the females all equal in qualifications and standing to the former males did not care about leaving the company and setting up their own companies, they focused more on working together, getting their needs met and making the company successful. Company satisfaction and work culture is reported to be higher in female led companies with more female to male ratios. Cooperativeness and general endurance is a genetic gift the female cannot really part with no matter her level sophistication.

Come to think of it ; going off the record for many liberals who argue both men and women are equal- I have a bone to pick because of a background in behavioral genetics. Meaning genes dictate human behaviors, meaning there is a reason girls play with dolls and boys pick tanks and soldiers, and there’s a reason that pattern unknowingly kept repeating for the last 65 million yrs. The male is an XY chromosome, and the female is an XX chromosome. Apart from the 50% different genetic material, it is to be noted that the male is the weaker sex, not because western media said it so or popularized it, but because the male inherits a Y chromosome which is a shorter chromosome in length almost half the length of a regular X chromosome with lower quantities of genetic material. Perhaps it really isn’t what it ‘looks like’ – ‘its what’s inside of you’ (from the movie toy story 3)

Having said that many people have come forward and argued that if the female is a peace maker then why are men in custody battles and courts crying their eye balls out today? Because the male aggression is geared towards impulsivity, harassment and coercion which is stupidly obvious. Whereas the female aggression is geared towards relational aggression, strategy, and reputation control. It means, mess with a male and expect to be coerced and harassed in a way that the authorities immediately take notice. Mess with a female and expect to go out one day and people don’t look at you the same. The legal system historically geared in a way, that the obvious behaviors are easy to take care of, meant there was higher male population in prison primarily for poor impulse control and overall ill thought out of behaviors. In the male world, the male with the strong impulse control wins. In the female world, the female with the strong emotional control wins.

Countries which have a higher female to male ratio in population tend to lean towards the left and libertarianism for example, most of Europe, Scandinavia, Canada, Australia. Countries with higher male to female ratios tend to lean towards the right and orthodox and conservative behaviors, example Iran, Iraq, most of the Middle East, India, and some parts of Asia. If the female to male ratio increases in a group, the propensity leans towards liberalism and progressivism. If the Male to female ratio increases, the propensity leans towards structure and conservativism. Does that mean the left countries are better? Probably not, men in left turned and more liberal countries have more options than average and make poorer partners compared to men in right centered countries who have lesser choices. Females in left turned liberal countries have poorer relationship satisfaction and outcomes compared to females in right turned more conservative countries. There are more single household females in left leaning countries and single mothers compared to right leaning conservative countries. Indeed there are “rights” but rights do not control social power structures. Is it better just because it is the left? you decide, you win some and you lose some

Come to think of it! how many times have you turned on the TV and seen a female world leader wage a world war? or any great substantial war?

WW1 :

WW2:

WW3 (preview and current trailer phase):

do you see still think men and women are similar?

or equal ?

However , just MAYYBE, if women DID rule the world , even if up to a realistic 40-30% ratio, things might actually really truly be – different!!