|
|
|
Wag
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:33 PM
Posts: 1,456,
Visits: 2,020
|
|
Marios (3/18/2007)
You seem to be suggesting that there's something unusual/childish about not liking being politically displaced (in which case, why all the fuss about unfair discrimination?). Having different terms to define who is being displaced/who is doing the displacing has been a fairly normal linguistic habit for - what - at least 2000 years - what's the grounds for discriminating against their use because women are involved? Are women pre-ethical or something?
I understand and expect people not to like being displaced. That's really my point, that "emasculation" is just anger at being displaced. I just don't understand why the word emasculate which basically means to remove your masculinity is considered an appropriate phrase for this process/feeling. It's not accurate, meaningful, appropriate or sensible. Even when you look the definitions up they just don't make sense in the context.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:33 PM
Posts: 1,456,
Visits: 2,020
|
|
Lavlin (3/18/2007)
Hey, it worked! I typed in some words and there it was, it the top of the google list:
Thank you, I enjoyed reading that. Although I feel obliged to make snide comments pointing out the fact that some people in this study appear to be moving more than 20Kg at once... Which you assured me there was no need for anymore... I'm glad it's not just me! 
The article however didn't seem very clear at all on whether this head weight walking advantage is unique to women or not. Their use of language repeatedly implies that it is, but their experimental evidence seems to flatly contradict this. They are pretty clear that putting my coin boxes on my head would be better than carrying them in my backpack (if I were the right kind of person), but they're not very clear on who this applies to. Their experimental data strongly implies that it is just as true for men as women. They state that sherpa men carry 10 Kg more on long journeys and 20kg more on short journeys using this technique than women do.
All of which just seems to support my argument that this fool-headed sherpas seem to think that men are capable of carrying greater weights than women are...
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:33 PM
Posts: 1,456,
Visits: 2,020
|
|
Lavlin (3/18/2007)
I`m sure he is.
Matt Pennington (3/17/2007)
Surely a sexist is someone who discriminates on grounds of gender? [snip: L] Discriminate means treating things differently. If you treat men and women the same then you haven't discriminated. If you don't treat them the same then you have.
Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
If a box weighs 100Kg and has room for two people to get round it at once, you better believe I'm going to pick a bloke to lift it with me over a woman every day of the week.
Nice juxtaposition of quotes. I don't know if the first quote was as foolishly stated as that in context, but perhaps it was. Just to be clear, I am prejudiced against women. Experience has taught me that most women are not as physically strong as most men and although I am intellectually aware that these are averages from which significant variations occur, I still make the presumption that men are stronger than women, until given individual evidence to the contrary. I prejudge women's strength and assume it will be less than a man's, which is prejudice.
I don't discriminate between men and women in this context though. Although I assume that women are weaker as a default position, when looking for a partner for a heavy lift I look for the strongest looking person available, judging that on the grounds of height, build, musculature and known history. Possibly my prejudice clouds my judgment, but I don't think so. Whenever a woman meets the requirements I need, either as the strongest (if one is needed) or as strong enough (if a team are needed) then I ask them to help.
I don't pick men for heavy lifting in preference to women. I pick strong people in preference to physically weaker people, regardless of gender. Of course in practice that means I always pick men before women, but my experience (unlike your own) is that men are invariably miles stronger than women, which is why I repeatedly pick them. I don't pick on the grounds of gender, I pick on the grounds of strength. When looking for someone to perform a job that requires strength I deliberately discriminate to pick the person who appears the strongest (which I think makes good sense) not to pick out the gender most capable (which is just pointless). I'm prejudiced on grounds on gender but I don't discriminate on grounds of gender (in this area, I'm sure I do in other areas, no-ones perfect) to the best of my knowledge.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
I understand and expect people not to like being displaced. That's really my point, that "emasculation" is just anger at being displaced.
'just anger'. I guess in the sense of being 'justly angry', yes.
Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
I just don't understand why the word emasculate which basically means to remove your masculinity is considered an appropriate phrase for this process/feeling.
If a man is ousted from a traditionally male role in a traditionally male field by a woman, then I think 'emasculation' is a reasonable description of what's happened to him (it's clearer if he is then forced into a traditionally female role, but I think it's good enough in the context).
Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
It's not accurate, meaningful, appropriate or sensible. Even when you look the definitions up they just don't make sense in the context.
Sorry - they make complete sense to me. Sure, it's a metaphor - your 'traditional male role' for 'your traditional male genitals' - but it seem entirely accurate (the male role is being cut away by a female), meaningful (I've never noticed anyone else get confused when the metaphor is confused - seems to me that the majority of people readily grasp the meaning - quite a lot of dictionary for which that isn't true), appropriate (who are you to say what is/is not appropriate? What's inappropriate about it's use in these contexts?) and sensible (I'd have thought quibbling about metaphors/idioms not being absolutely literal would be more likely to count as 'not sensible').
What context is it that you don't think this makes sense in? What's wrong with the contexts Nesciomancer and Coffmeister laid out?
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 28, 2008 9:03 PM
Posts: 320,
Visits: 1,375
|
|
Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
Although I feel obliged to make snide comments pointing out the fact that some people in this study appear to be moving more than 20Kg at once... Which you assured me there was no need for anymore... I'm glad it's not just me! Africa, India, Tibet; not Europe. I`m afraid it all falls outside our jurisdiction.
And I happen think it`s telling that they can carry upto 20kg 'for free'. It sort of gives ground for that weight limit, wouldn`t you say? Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
The article however didn't seem very clear at all on whether this head weight walking advantage is unique to women or not. I take it it`s not. In case my previous post was unclear, with 'designed by nature to carry weight', I was referring to being with child. The porte-à-tête was a second, independent thought. Significant is that the only reference group that shows comparable results, are professional porters. This supports my argument that carrying loads is an acquired skill, and not as dependant on raw physical strength as you keep suggesting.
Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
I'm prejudiced on grounds on gender but I don't discriminate on grounds of gender (in this area, I'm sure I do in other areas, no-ones perfect) to the best of my knowledge.It`s no fun when you answer it, Matt, if I`d meant for that to happen, I would have put it in the other post. I think I can now return to the point where I`m prejudiced on grounds of sex, but in less physical areas. When I`m looking for someone trustworthy, I`m unlikely to choose a woman, although I do not rule out that possibility.
________________________________________________________ - IRL: Edwin Hofstra
- - mostly crewing at the moment
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 28, 2008 9:03 PM
Posts: 320,
Visits: 1,375
|
|
Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
Unfortunately these solutions cost money, money which often is simply unavailable.How much does being incapacitated cost? In the example of the 100kg boxes, a simple rope or a pair of broomsticks would double the space for people to help. Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
I'm afraid they prove nothing of the sort. They prove that men and women are capable of lifting weights heavy enough to damage muscles and joints. I see. Remind me not to accept a position in your organization. Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
The fact that that exposes the woman to more danger than the man is neither here nor there, she is still better suited to childbirth than I am, so it still makes logical sense (all other things being equal) for the woman to get pregnant instead of the man.You`re completely off balance again. Men don`t get pregnant, period. If they did, they`d be women. It`s not a division of labour, it`s an impossibility. Nothing sensible about it. Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
I could, but they look like shit. To be precise they look like plastic. Since PD is a small, newcomer to the professional LRP market we have to try to do things better to win market share. Otherwise... no business....It was a rhetorical question. The 'normal organizers' should have made clear it was just a little jibe. As a LRPer I appreciate the difference between metal and plastic coins.
And as a trained goldsmith with friends employed in the minting business, cheers!
________________________________________________________ - IRL: Edwin Hofstra
- - mostly crewing at the moment
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:33 PM
Posts: 1,456,
Visits: 2,020
|
|
Lavlin (3/19/2007)
How much does being incapacitated cost? In the example of the 100kg boxes, a simple rope or a pair of broomsticks would double the space for people to help.
If life were really that simply why would anyone outside Europe carry more than 20Kg....
There are ways to reduce the amount of heavy lifting you do. But in life you make compromises, you balance risk of injury vs hassle and productivity. The EEC rightly restricts heavy lifting because the balance of those two factors is different for the employer than for the employee. Of course when you are your own employee, that doesn't work. You go for the minimum hassle option and you pick up the heavy box and get on with it.
I see. Remind me not to accept a position in your organization. But the pay is great. So long as you like 16 hour days...  I think the EEC have another one of those funny little ideas of theres about how long you can be expected to work. Bless them!
Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
You`re completely off balance again. Men don`t get pregnant, period. If they did, they`d be women.
Well that's what I thought but you said that men did die in childbirth, so I wondered if maybe it was an area we could discuss. We did seem to be discussing the idea that men aren't stronger than woman at one point, so I'm open to the notion of discussing male deaths in childbirth. But my bias is to believe it doesn't happen.
It`s not a division of labour, it`s an impossibility. Nothing sensible about it.
The fact that we can't redivide this piece of labour is actually irrelevant. The point is that women do all the work and they take all the risks. And that's just tough shit. Because women are better at it, so much better that men are actually completely incapable of it. Be a laugh if they could mind, but that's an aside.
The point is that it's not unfair that women are exposed to the higher risk of pregnancy anymore than it's unfair that men are exposed to the higher risk of heavy lifting. It would be true that it was unfair if there was no difference between men and women's abilities in terms of pregnancy or heavy lifting but there are clear differences. And so we each do what we're good at because someone has to take the risk (where it can't be removed), so it might as well be the best person for the job.
I'm aware that you don't feel there needs to be a risk. I don't agree, but since we can't agree on that issue, then the issue is moot. I agree that it doesn't matter as much whether men are stronger than women if the weights are so sleight that either gender can lift them easily.
Matt Pennington (3/18/2007)
As a LRPer I appreciate the difference between metal and plastic coins.
I like metal coins. Mostly because I like to imagine the look on the thieves face as they try to run off with the banks money... Lifting 100 Kg boxes is funny... when it's IC...
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, March 30, 2007 10:27 PM
Posts: 115,
Visits: 143
|
|
I think that exposure of women to the risk of childbirth is an example of the tyranny of biology, while the exposure of men to the risks of heavy lifting is at best socially enforced, and at worst, macho. they can't be conpared.
Being tall makes lifting things more difficult, because most joints in the body are type three levers,and therefore, the longer the l | | | |