Page:
ben-ja-menGOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia


Posted:
so aaron lex and myself went into the realestate agents today to sign our lease for our swanky new apartment and part way through the realestate agent said to lexy

"so which one do you belong to"

footinmouth eek

but heres the jaw dropping bit ..... the realestate agent was a woman.

this was the first time i had come across this sort of attitude/comment i thought stuff like that only happened in movies. do other ppl encounter this sort of attitude or did we just draw one that evolution forgot?

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?


RoziSILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia


Posted:
I would like to see it tried out, and people comment back on the advantages and disadvantages of it.

I suspect that it would produce the desired result of having a better mix of people. And that then the next challenge would be to ensure they were accepted into the organisation and given a good chance.

It could be a start!!

It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.

What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...


Gnarly CraniumSILVER Member
member
186 posts
Location: San Francisco, USA


Posted:
Okay this is from way back at the beginning of the thread, but I just came along and it's bugging me, so...

Written by: Icer


dont get me wrong, all this sexism, homophobia, racism, bigotry--the works, its all bad and i hate it. the onyl gray area for me is equality for women, now pls dont get me wrong here either, im all for womans rights and stuff, wot im talkin about is the 'nice' things a man can do, gentlemanly things




Scuse me but dood-- what the hell has chivalry got to do with EQUALITY? This is exactly the kind of comment that got this thread started to begin with, something that wasn't necessarily intended to be insulting but in reality is casually, unconsciously offensive. You qualify it in the next sentence, but still, there it is.

In general, women and men will never be treated exactly the same. Even if you could make every single person on the planet totally bi, the genders would still be different. 'Equality' between people is not 'sameness'.

"Ours is not to question The Head; it is enough to revel in the ubiquitous inanity of The Head, the unwanted proximity of The Head, the unrelenting HellPresence of The Head, indeed the very UNYIELDING IRRELEVANCE of The Head!" --Revelation X


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
That's actually a very interesting comment: "Equality between people is not sameness". How, then, do you propose that everyone is equal if they are not all the same?

I agree with you btw, and it's because the education authority didn't have a handle on this that we get things like the abolishment of Grammar Schools. We're not all the same thanks, if I want that I'll start my very own Borg Collective.

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


Gnarly CraniumSILVER Member
member
186 posts
Location: San Francisco, USA


Posted:
'Equality' is based on a notion of value. A dollar bill is equal to four quarters, but not the same. You keep them in different pockets in your wallet, and you probably always will. Each is better for different situations, but they're equal. Just like men and women-- hell, all people-- are worth as much as each other, but always different from each other.

"Ours is not to question The Head; it is enough to revel in the ubiquitous inanity of The Head, the unwanted proximity of The Head, the unrelenting HellPresence of The Head, indeed the very UNYIELDING IRRELEVANCE of The Head!" --Revelation X


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
So (and I know this isn't what you're suggesting, but it has to be pointed out) is a mentally or physically handicapped person have less value? How do you define Value when you are applying it to Human Beings? And is an Immoral person equal to a moral one? If that is the case, why be Moral?

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


BirgitBRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)


Posted:
it depends on how you look at it...

If you run a company, yes, a disabled person will probably be worth less to you than a healthy one, but if you intend to harm them, you'll find that the state considers them worth protecting as much or even more as a "normal" person. So value is defined from the point of view.

Or by laws to help us cause we won't get the values right if we're left all alone with them wink

"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
"Many of the truths we cling to in life depend greatly upon our point of view" - Obi Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness)

A more subtle and accurate statement never existed.

But, in the long term, won't people with certain physical problems will simply erode the gene pool? I mean, if a person was sterile, why should they reproduce if nature is saying "Don't Have kids" to them? And why should disabled people be valued *above* healthy people? What additional value (apart from rarity) do they have above people with a lesser degree of physical imperfection?

Please can everyone be aware that this is an entirely hypothetical viewpoint? I do not intend to cause offence, and these are not my personal opinions, I am simply laying out arguments for the debate in hand. I am not the next re-incarnation of Hitler, and I do NOT have problems with anyone who has illnesses or disabilities or anything else mentioned here. So please don't flame me for presenting a hypothetical argument. Thank You! peace

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


RoziSILVER Member
100 characters max...
2,996 posts
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia


Posted:
Ok, it is very tempting to begin picking at this line of argument in little tiny bits. To say things like "so you are equating physical ability with value?". But I know that is only looking at part of what is being argued.

What we are arguing about is equality, and what it means. Under the definition that a few people are using in this thread, the phrase "equal but different" is a useful tautology, because they are defining equality as encompassing difference. Others here are defining equal as having exactly the same characteristics, hence for them the phrase "equal but different" is a contradiction in terms.

IMO, I define "equal" as a term encompassing difference (the former definition).

By the way, have you considered how we encourage the genders towards difference from an early age? Often without thinking about it, we say of a baby "its a girl/boy!!!". Immediately that little baby is burdened with all the expected characteristics of their gender. I have found that it is less so in Australia, but often the expectation is that girls will be less physically active, they will be praised for being "nice and quiet". As such, women are praised into being less active than men, and therefore develop less muscle strength and physical ability.

It was a day for screaming at inanimate objects.

What this calls for is a special mix of psychology and extreme violence...


Gnarly CraniumSILVER Member
member
186 posts
Location: San Francisco, USA


Posted:
The notion of personal equality basically boils down to the notion that everyone is worth the same consideration. They can't do the same things, some contribute more to society than others, but they're all worth the same consideration, as sentient beings. I guess one way to put it, is that everyone is equal in the eyes of God, or whatever ultimate objective observer you want to stick out there.

Pretty much everybody is subjective, though... so just how to weigh this stuff will be debated forever.

"Ours is not to question The Head; it is enough to revel in the ubiquitous inanity of The Head, the unwanted proximity of The Head, the unrelenting HellPresence of The Head, indeed the very UNYIELDING IRRELEVANCE of The Head!" --Revelation X


BirgitBRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)


Posted:
The point is, Sethis, if you want to be consequent about the value of people you will end up in fascism again. If you only want to be hypothetical though, yes, sick people will weaken the gene pool, as will stupid people (unless they're incredibly useful through strength, but honestly nowadays we have machines for that).

When I said that disabled people were valued above healthy people in certain things then that's just a matter of protection, as there is for kids, too. Of course, hypothetically you can go for "survival of the fittest" and say that if children can't cope with being exploited for work or raped or nearly starving to death then it might be better to remove them from the gene pool early.

I just doubt the value of the hypothetical discussion about this wink except the fun of discussing things of course

"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)

Owner of Dragosani's left half


SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Well I enjoy a discussion of anything anyone cares to suggest, and I think that to have been properly discussed all viewpoints need to be examined. This includes views that some people may find slightly offensive because if you just say "No, I don't like it, it disgusts me" then you aren't actually paying attention to what it's saying and you're starting the foundation of the belief that your view is superior to someone elses. As we know, people have DIFFERENT viewpoints, but that doesn't mean that anyone is right or wrong. Just different. Although I think that intolerance is wrong in all of its myriad forms, that's just my opinion.

I don't think (well I hope not) that there are too many people in the world who believe that because you are disabled you have inherently less value. Look at Stephen Hawkings (And I know that there are lots of other people all worthy of recognition, I just picked his name out of the sky).

And Rozi raises a good point, I remember seeing at a beach that a father would lift his daughter above the waves before they hit her, while he put his hand on the shoulder of his son to brace him for the impact. A very subtle lesson in how we teach the different genders to deal with problems.

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


ed209Ed: geek, staffer, past participle
122 posts
Location: London, UK


Posted:
Written by: Sethis


Well wouldn't it be simple enough to apply for all jobs postally? And then the company simply selects the applicant with the most relavent qualifications?

I agree that if the job involves talking to customers/representatives etc then the person should be interviewed, but only AFTER they have been confirmed as a possible candidate, and they should have the right to appeal if someone is chosen over them who is less qualified.

I agree that teaching in this area is woefully inadequate, as are the laws.

The problem with "overselect[ing] underrepresented groups in the hope that the existing unequal status quo is upset" is that it simply causes further resentment against the minority (they're stealing our jobs! etc etc) How would you feel if you applied for a job and *this is NOT MY VIEW* it got stolen by an immigrant from another country, just cos he/she fulfilled a % point on the roster?





That's absolutely right. And it causes resentment because it reeks of hypocrisy. Plus I think any self-respecting minority person (minority by gender, ethnicity, disability etc), and I speak from experience here, would be incredibly offended to learn that they got a position simply because they were a minority. Someone once told me that I probably got my university place because of this and I damned near destroyed him.

The problem with the postal application idea, is that almost all jobs should interview people for the position because you can find out much more about a candidate from an interview than from a postal application. And that in practice, appealing against an interview decision is very difficult because it can be very hard to prove level of qualification.

SethisBRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom


Posted:
Valid points Ed, but I can't think of another way of practically eliminating bias from the selection process. And you're right, the selection of a person on the basis of their belonging to a minority not only offends the people who've had their job "Stolen" but also the person who gets the Job! I can imagine how anyone would feel about being selected to fill a percentage rather than on their own merits.

After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


Page:

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [patriarchal stereotype*] we found the following similar topics.
  • Forums > Patriarchal Stereotypes [77 replies]
  • Forums > do you like to stand out? [39 replies]

  •       Show more..

    Bulletin d'information HOP

    Inscrivez-vous pour obtenir les dernières nouvelles sur les ventes, les nouvelles versions et plus encore ...