|
|
|
and Minimeister
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:31 AM
Posts: 960,
Visits: 1,402
|
|
Marios (3/21/2007)
Matt Pennington (3/21/2007)
Demanding that women lift heavy objects to demonstrate their commitment to equality or whatever isn't equality it's sexism.Ah, yes - Peace is War. Marios Well lifting heavy objects is one thing. The argument for the strongest person doing the heavy lifting (where safe) seems fairly logical to me. The statistical likelihood of this person being a man seems fairly good as well. Now, a question I do care about: Is it sexist to offer my seat to a lady on the bus/tube?
There is only overconfidence and terror.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
coffmeister (3/22/2007)
Well lifting heavy objects is one thing. The argument for the strongest person doing the heavy lifting (where safe) seems fairly logical to me. The statistical likelihood of this person being a man seems fairly good as well.
Once you've decided that it's ok to discriminate on statistical grounds (said woman is more likely to be less 'strong', therefore discriminatory roles are acceptable) then I don't see that much discrimination remains invalid. Statistically, black people are more likely to commit crimes and muslims are more likely to be terrorists - reason dictates that we deploy our limited police resources to match
coffmeister (3/22/2007)
Now, a question I do care about: Is it sexist to offer my seat to a lady on the bus/tube?
This debate seems to have resolved to 'bad discrimination is bad, good discrimination is good', so you simply have to figure out which kind of discrimination it is.
More relevantly, it is sex-y to offer your seat to a lady on the bus/tube? Does she have a low-cut top offering a good view to someone standing nearby while she is sitting?
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:33 PM
Posts: 1,456,
Visits: 2,020
|
|
Marios (3/22/2007)
Once you've decided that it's ok to discriminate on statistical grounds (said woman is more likely to be less 'strong', therefore discriminatory roles are acceptable) then I don't see that much discrimination remains invalid.
Absolutely. Since neither me nor Coffmeister were remotely suggesting that however, your arguments are pretty pointless.
It's not about roles, it's about picking the strongest person at the time. That happens, under most circumstances to be a man. If you think that's sexist fair enough, I disagree with you, but given the current level of your comments I can't really be bothered to debate it with you I'm afraid.
To me saying "this bloke is stronger than this woman, but we're going to ask the woman lift it anyway because it's important that her gender does the same amount of lifting as the other gender so that they are exposed to the same risk profile" is gender discrimination. You are picking a person for a job not on the basis of ability but on the basis of their gender. You're discriminating between two people, one of whom is clearly more capable and selecting the other on grounds of gender.
Statistically, black people are more likely to commit crimes and muslims are more likely to be terrorists - reason dictates that we deploy our limited police resources to match
Yes it does. But it doesn't follow that we assume that individual muslims are terrorists because we know that there is significant deviation in the sample set.
Assuming that a) terrorists will be muslims is not the same as assuming that b) muslims will be terrorists.
This debate seems to have resolved to 'bad discrimination is bad, good discrimination is good', so you simply have to figure out which kind of discrimination it is.
*shrug* I mentioned earlier that discrimination is a good thing in many cases. So since you've clearly got brilliant insight into this, how about you answer this question. Most folk IMO (clearly not yourself, you're far too enlightened) view extreme racism as "bad". Most folk however consider it perfectly acceptable to discriminate against paedophiles (did you know that paedophiles are legally prevented from getting jobs working with children? Shocking isn't it?).
I think the average human being is capable of working out that a more nuanced stance than "everything is either bad or good and there are no shades of grey" is required to be a functioning member of society. The debate is in working out where the nuances lie. Give us a shout when you catch up with the idea.
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
|
|
coffmeister (3/22/2007)
Now, a question I do care about: Is it sexist to offer my seat to a lady on the bus/tube?
It's gender discrimination... I wouldn't consider it sexist, I'd consider it courteous. However I don't think it's a courtesy that makes much sense anymore or is even very well received. It borders on being patronising and you risk offending as much as you risk making the person feel better.
I also wouldn't bother. Why should I stand up so a woman can sit down? I might have bigger muscles than she has, but she's as capable of standing upright as I am.
Of course if she was pregnant I'd give her my seat, but I'd do the same for a heavily pregnant man.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Friday, November 28, 2008 11:34 PM
Posts: 587,
Visits: 3,975
|
|
It's probably The Bad Kind Of Sexist to offer your seat to a lady on the bus/tube if you would not offer your seat to a man of about the same apparent level of physical fitness/wellbeing. (i.e. if you would offer your seat to a healthy twenty-something female who doesn't look like they would have much trouble from trying to stand up, but not to a frail old man who looks like he might have trouble gripping the hand-holds or whatever, then it is sexist)
I'm not sure it's The Bad Kind Of Sexist to assume that a woman appearing roughly as fit/well as you requires the seat more than you, though. I'm certainly grateful when people give me a seat, and frankly don't care about their motivations. (Also it is quite possible that the woman in question has period cramps and would benefit immensely from sitting down, but has learnt to cope with them so there are no obvious signs of this - I'd say that there is actually a higher likelihood, in general, of a woman who looks about the same physical condition as a man needing the seat more than the man does, but that may just be my selfishness at wanting people to give me seats talking...)
(Women, including me, are often their own worst enemy at this sexism thing, on account of enjoying the benefits of sexism when it means that men do things for us that, whilst we're capable of doing, we'd rather not, like taking out the garbage or killing small creatures or standing up on public transport or opening doors.)
Maelstrom: Jessily the Wemic, previously Tourmaline of Weaver
CUTT: Kerriville the Ninth, previously Ref 07/08
EOS: Study the Venin
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
I'll come back on this thread when I've got a bit more time - for now I think everyone should ask themselves whether they have what it takes to be a ... Vagina Warrior!
http://www.vday.org/contents/vday/press/media/0310291
"Although Vagina Warriors are highly original, they possess some general defining characteristics:
They are fierce, obsessed, can’t be stopped, driven.
They are no longer beholden to social customs or inhibited by taboos. They are not afraid to be alone, not afraid to be ridiculed or attacked. They are often willing to face anything for the safety and freedom of others.
They love to dance.
They are directed by vision, not ruled by ideology.
They are citizens of the world. They cherish humanity over nationhood.
They have a wicked sense of humor. A Palestinian activist told jokes to an Israeli soldier who pointed a machine gun at her as she tried to pass the checkpoints. She literally disarmed him with her humor."
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
and Minimeister
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:31 AM
Posts: 960,
Visits: 1,402
|
|
ChessyPig (3/24/2007)
It's probably The Bad Kind Of Sexist to offer your seat to a lady on the bus/tube if you would not offer your seat to a man of about the same apparent level of physical fitness/wellbeing. (i.e. if you would offer your seat to a healthy twenty-something female who doesn't look like they would have much trouble from trying to stand up, but not to a frail old man who looks like he might have trouble gripping the hand-holds or whatever, then it is sexist)
Wait... there's a good kind of "sexist" now? Also, I would offer my seat to frail-looking people in general because 1) I feel like it and 2) if they collapse I'll be late and probably have to do something about it.
Matt Pennington (3/22/2007)
It's gender discrimination... I wouldn't consider it sexist, I'd consider it courteous. However I don't think it's a courtesy that makes much sense anymore or is even very well received. It borders on being patronising and you risk offending as much as you risk making the person feel better.
Fairy nuff. I'll just go with people who look infirm. Except Marios, but that's because he can't be as ill as he looks. No more patronising and unwanted courtesies from me then.
ChessyPig (3/24/2007)
I'm not sure it's The Bad Kind Of Sexist to assume that a woman appearing roughly as fit/well as you requires the seat more than you, though. I'm certainly grateful when people give me a seat, and frankly don't care about their motivations. ([snip]but that may just be my selfishness at wanting people to give me seats talking. [snip] Women, including me, are often their own worst enemy at this sexism thing, on account of enjoying the benefits of sexism when it means that men do things for us that, whilst we're capable of doing, we'd rather not, like taking out the garbage or killing small creatures or standing up on public transport or opening doors.)
Interesting. A thought occurs that perhaps all women would be better off if some women stopped letting themselves be treated as frail and fragile. In fact, women stopping perceiving _themselves_ as frail and fragile would go a long way towards _men_ losing these perceptions. (I seem to be spending a lot of my working time surrounded by women and their conversation and it's been quite illuminating in some respects.)
There is only overconfidence and terror.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 PM
Posts: 2,003,
Visits: 8,528
|
|
coffmeister (3/28/2007)
Interesting. A thought occurs that perhaps all women would be better off if some women stopped letting themselves be treated as frail and fragile.
Individual advantage != group advantage. All women would probably be 'better off' (more secure, at least) if women weren't prone to opportunistic mate-snatching - but then, why shouldn't you if you can? Women don't normally form aggressive coalitions - it doesn't matter nearly so much if they antagonise eachother (oh ... shared houses with multiple women ...).
coffmeister (3/28/2007)
In fact, women stopping perceiving _themselves_ as frail and fragile would go a long way towards _men_ losing these perceptions.
Indeed - then we can stop lying to eachothers by adopting deceptive gender roles, mate selection can be decided by giant government tombola at a rate decided by ten-yearly vote.
Marios
|
|
|
| | |