Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Women's Rights Movement That Went Too Far

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:23 am UTC

I was asked to put this up here, so I hope that it's appropriate, but it's based on one of my pet rants.

Now, I didn't do my homework, but I was under the impression that the point of women's rights was to end discrimination against women. So, if that impression is correct, I am then led to wonder if it is really necessary that in order to uphold the rights of women, the rights of men get quashed.

Example 1: In Sydney, a male-only gym was successfully sued and closed down because it discriminated against women by not allowing them membership. However, women-only gyms are very common, and they even use the idea that men are desperate to join, but can't, as a marketing tool. So, it's okay to discriminate against men, but not women, is that what you're saying?

Example 2: My alumni, the Queensland University of Technology holds an annual awards ceremony where a white male is not eligible to win any of the awards. All the awards are centred around excellence in being a woman, being of aboriginal descent, and so forth. They've become so focused on recognising minorities that the people we are trying to "protect" these miniorities from are in danger of becoming one.

I'm sure that there are dozens, if not hundreds of other examples where we have simply exchanged one set of double standards for another.
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
chrispy1
Posts: 685
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 10:52 am UTC
Location: Oakville ONT Canada

Postby chrispy1 » Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:35 am UTC

As my dear mom says, "We've become so focussed on being Basically Decent, we've become politically INcorrect".

There was a group here in Ontario that pressured the government to change any phrase or word with "man" in it to more "comfortable phrasing". Manhole? Underground Service Entrance. Garbageman? Sanitation Engineer. At what point will we as society go "Whoa, now we're just getting silly"?

To SW's point about the women-only gym, a male friend of mine went to pick up his girlfriend who was at a class. He walked into the lobby and started heading towards the cafeteria (which was all of 30 feet from the front door) when 3 female security guards came out of nowhere and asked him to leave. He explained he was just getting a coffee and was then going to sit in the lobby to wait for his GF, when he was told that the women wouldn't feel comfortable having a male on the premises. He was then escorted outside and one of the guards stood by the door until he left.
Narsil wrote:For the record, I am not:
b)obsessed with penii, I just have bad luck and they follow me everywh...

SpitValve wrote:And as for Optimus being influenced by Buddhism, I severly doubt it.

User avatar
ArchangelShrike
Rodan's Title
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:39 am UTC
Location: Waikiki

Postby ArchangelShrike » Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:36 am UTC

You're absolutely right. Don't mind the misguided zealots in their quest for equality, because they're just doing what they do best.

(Speaking as a under-represented minority, so not sure if tongue-in-cheek.)

Anything I missed?

Edit: Actually, we've already gotten to the point where we think it's silly, but no one says anything for fear of waiting outside with a guard watching over us.

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:45 am UTC

I think it all got silly quite a while ago. I won't pretend that there isn't still discrimination on women going on. It will probably always go on. But how can we be so blind to discrimination going the other way.

And frankly, I feel sorry for any woman who feels "uncomfortable" by a male (*gasp shock horror*) buying coffee. I think he's far more likely to be the one feeling awkward, being so grossly out-numbered.


EDIT: typo

EDIT2: instead of replying again, I'm just going to say to une see: damn straight.
Last edited by GhostWolfe on Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:49 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
une see
Is my girl
Posts: 1038
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:31 pm UTC
Location: a tenuous grip on reality
Contact:

Postby une see » Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:46 am UTC

I agree, to a certain extent. Women are still discriminated against in a lot of ways, and by no means are women treated equally in certain professions. There are almost undoubtedly more instances of discrimination against women than discrimination against men, but of course it's completely unethical to discriminate against men also.

And that's what I don't get about affirmative action. It's merely promoting a different form of discrimination, albeit not against the historically oppressed minority in question (blacks, women, etc.). It's right to discriminate against a the majority now just because it's the majority? That's such complete bullshit, IMHO.

User avatar
tessuraea
Not Phallic Enough
Posts: 556
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:46 am UTC

Postby tessuraea » Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:48 am UTC

I don't like the absurdity of these situations, but I do think that protected space for people who are not members of the dominant group in society is important.

I guess that's not going to be a popular opinion around here, but it is one that's really important to me.

Here in the US, women still earn less money than men do, are expected to do more of the domestic work and child care, and outnumber men only in low-paying, low-status jobs. The same thing is true of white and non-white people. The discrimination is institutional, real, and still existent. It can be measured and has been measured. A black man taking things from a store after Hurricane Katrina was labeled a "looter" in the papers. A white man doing the same thing was labeled a "forager."

I don't want more rights than men. I just want us all to be people, and for no one to care if we're men or women. But it doesn't work that way, not yet at least. White privilege, male privilege, and hetero privilege are real things. In practice, men really do have more, if not legal rights, practical benefits from their gender than women do.

Feminists are not out to make women "better" than men or to give women "special rights." They want equality--that is and has always been the goal. But when opportunity is skewed because of gender, race, and class, how do you promote equality of outcome?

It's like my classmate who said "why is it okay for black people to have their own TV station? What if I said we should have a white-only TV station?" Two of us--the only black person in class and I--said simultaneously "white people have all the other stations." From my perspective, the same logic applies.
This is not a reference to anyone's junk.

User avatar
ArchangelShrike
Rodan's Title
Posts: 1533
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 8:39 am UTC
Location: Waikiki

Postby ArchangelShrike » Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:56 am UTC

The problem is not the protected space, or ideals behind the movements, but rather the length to which it is carried.

For example: On the women's only gym, to which the BF was asked to wait outside and treated like a criminal for simply waiting around. I realize that maybe there are some that maybe uncomfortable with men around, but why not make a separate waiting room for men waiting for wives, girlfriends, daughters, sisters, friends etc.? This is a limited example, but it works. If groups have a problem with it, petition or such. Let's see it work in the opposite direction for absurdity.

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:06 am UTC

No one's denying that discrimination still exists. No one is suggesting that minorities do not deserve equality. But why should equality come at the expense of other people's rights? That's not what equality even is. My complaint isn't against the women fighting for equal rights, it's the women fighting against men's rights by objecting to men having the same things that women have (e.g. gender specific gyms and the right to win teaching awards that are for teaching, not for teaching and being a minority).
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
Phenriz
I'm daaancin' like a monkey!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Phenriz » Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:48 am UTC

tessuraea wrote:It's like my classmate who said "why is it okay for black people to have their own TV station? What if I said we should have a white-only TV station?" Two of us--the only black person in class and I--said simultaneously "white people have all the other stations." From my perspective, the same logic applies.


They do?

There's a difference between black and "urban"...... i do hope you realize this. BET represents the primarily "urban" portion of the black community, not the whole spectrum of the black community here in the states. BET is a channel for a marketable sub-culture within America, no different than say G4(ughhh i hate that channel, i miss TechTV) is for "gamers" (uggghhh i hate that title) G4 is not directed primarily at whites, it directs itself at a marketable sub-culture.

Give me channels that are exclusively focused on whites. As marketing firms want the most for their money, they are going to sell to everyone they can. Discrimination does not help them in this manner.

What you presented isn't even logic, it's a fallacy.
I loveded you piggy, i lovded youuuu!!!

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:45 am UTC

I like the fact that this is bieng discusses.

What it means to me, is that we are about to hit an equilibrium on women's rights issues, thats why another side is developing logically.

This is super awsome news for women, because it means that we are very close to getting equality.

Anyone get what I am saying here?
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

Bringer
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:38 pm UTC

Postby Bringer » Wed Jun 27, 2007 3:58 am UTC

This also goes back to when many feminists were attempting to get words with 'man' in it changed to be 'woman'. Talk about double standards. Us as huwomen should never stoop to that.

Theoretically, the optimal solution would be to have legislation against any kind of discrimination (in this case) of the sexes. And to avoid things like the closure of a male only gym you'd need to have the law allowing for male and female only businesses.

SilverWolfe, do you know any more about that gym business? Perhaps its the only gym in the area or something? I find it hard to believe a judge would make that kind of decision with discrimination as the only factor, unless the defense lawyers didn't manage to put up any cases of female only gyms in court.
SSBM - Best Yoshi player in Australia

User avatar
Phenriz
I'm daaancin' like a monkey!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Phenriz » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:02 am UTC

it would make sense to me, that if they wanted a men's only gym, they would simply turn it into a club type organization.
I loveded you piggy, i lovded youuuu!!!

Bringer
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:38 pm UTC

Postby Bringer » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:28 am UTC

I don't know what eventuated from it, but there was a thing not long ago about removing gender and sexuality restrictions from bars and the like here.

Unless by club you meant 'chess club' style club instead of 'night club'. And even then, I doubt they've been left alone as well.
SSBM - Best Yoshi player in Australia

User avatar
pollywog
Let's party like it's my postcount
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 10:10 am UTC
Location: Coolest little capital in the world
Contact:

Postby pollywog » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:37 am UTC

You ever get the feeling that we as a race aren't going to develop much further until we get rid of all this stuff. All the labels and that, it's just so bleh.
I have issues with prejudice. To me, everybody deserves to be equal, with a few exceptions, so I can't really understand why people don't want them to.

But I can see a case where a women's only gym would be necessary. There is a swimming pool up in Auckland (I think) that does not allow men. At all. Most of its customers are Muslim women and rape or sexual abuse victims, who would feel uncomfortable or scared around men, especially in a revealing costume.
suffer-cait wrote:hey, guys?
i'm fucking magic

User avatar
3.14159265...
Irrational (?)
Posts: 2413
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:05 am UTC
Location: Ajax, Canada

Postby 3.14159265... » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:44 am UTC

All men pools for the gay guys?
All women workplaces?
All women restaurants?
All women cities?

I think its easier to help those women with their trauma then that.

Also, muslim women, what about sending kids to Muslim private schools, don't get me started on that shit!

Religion/Public stuff, VERY seperate.
"The best times in life are the ones when you can genuinely add a "Bwa" to your "ha""- Chris Hastings

jwwells
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:47 am UTC

Postby jwwells » Wed Jun 27, 2007 4:57 am UTC

If we hold that it is wrong to sue and shut down a club for excluding women, we should apply the same standard to a club that excludes men. I do not believe either club should be shut down. The purpose of the law is not to enforce morality - and, when we reach the point at which these things happen, we are doing precisely that.

On that note, there are court cases in which aggrieved parties of any number of races or creeds have claimed special privilege. Does this mean that civil rights has gone too far? That Christianity has gone to far? That atheism has gone too far? That everybody has gone too far, and we should sink back into a general haze of apathy?

Or does it just mean that when a large number of people believe in something, some proportion of them are going to be extremists?

User avatar
Phenriz
I'm daaancin' like a monkey!
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby Phenriz » Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:01 am UTC

jwwells wrote:Or does it just mean that when a large number of people believe in something, some proportion of them are going to be extremists?


bingo
I loveded you piggy, i lovded youuuu!!!

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:00 am UTC

jwwells wrote:On that note, there are court cases in which aggrieved parties of any number of races or creeds have claimed special privilege. Does this mean that civil rights has gone too far?


I don't think you quite understood the point of my post. My post is about denying special privileges to one group simply because they aren't a minority by definition.

I'm beginning to worry that the "average white male" is in danger of extinction as people scramble to identify with a minority that will assert the rights that are ignored or denied them.

Example: the number of "white" Aborginal Australians is on the increase. So long as you can prove that you had an Aboriginal ancestor within X number of generations, you are entitled to all the benefits afforded to them, no matter how thin the bloodline. Now, don't all jump on me, because I'm not saying that it is wrong to identify your heirtage, but I would suggest that it should honestly be unecessary.
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Postby cephalopod9 » Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:27 am UTC

(using words with newly made-up definitions makes me mad. explain to me how "rights" can go too far? See, I'm sure stuff related to "women's rights" has gone to far by that's not women's rights, it's something different. FEMINISM IS WANTING EQUALITY IF YOU THINK MEN SHOULD BE TREATED AS NICELY AS WOMEN YOU'RE STILL A FEMINIST. THAT'S WHAT THE WORD MEANS. FEMISTS AREN'T OUT TO MAKE WOMEN "MORE EQUAL", EQUAL MEANS THE SAME ok, calming down and looking at what nice people had to say. )


I'm pretty sure they're the same dang 'ol double standards, just from a different angle.
All the awards are centred around excellence in being a woman,
, I'm sorry, but what? Singling them out for attention has nothing to do with their rights, it's still sexism.

Like I've said before, I'm conflicted when it comes to affirmative action. On the one hand, bigots won't change their own minds, and on the other we're doing it badly. Why do we call it "reverse discrimination" when all it is is just more discrimination? I think the problem is is that there's no complete picture. How do we correct for a couple centuries of oppression? There's no simple answer for complex social change.
Image

User avatar
__Kit
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 5:12 am UTC
Location: 16/M/NZ
Contact:

Postby __Kit » Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:39 am UTC

Firstly, THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS THREAD

An example that comes to mind is me and my friend, his sister and my sister used to hang out a lot, the two girls would always be checking out boys and be making - I guess you could call them - sexually harassing comments, if me or my friend even mentioned in the tiniest form the attractiveness of another female, they would rant about us being pigs etc.
I think I was the only one who realized how ironic it was :(

In New Zealand, there are SO MANY scholarships for Maori and pacific Islanders, and special courses, if you can speak Maori, these scholarships could be going to the people who deserve them - whether they are black or white.

Thanks for the thread again, I will try to think of many examples (sorry for grammatical errors I'm writing fast)

Me and a friend of mine actually talk about 'positive racism' and 'reverse racism' sometimes (these terms may be non-existent)
=]

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:39 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Explain to me how "rights" can go too far?

When your right to call discrimination on someone now prevents them from doing something that you can quite rightly do, and they doing it really is none of your business, then I call shenanigans.

__Kit wrote:Me and a friend of mine actually talk about 'positive racism' and 'reverse racism' sometimes (these terms may be non-existent)

With positive racism, you might be thinking acceptable discrimination. The word discrimination has been bandied about for such a long time now that it has drawn extremely bad and unwarranted connotations of evil. To the point where I was studying at university with a group of students who simply could not wrap their heads around the idea that there was a difference between "good" discrimination (e.g. determining someone has the requisite skill set for a job) and "bad" or illegal discrimination (someone being turned down for a job due to age/gender/etc)

EDITS: To include what Kit said; and to correct a typo.
Last edited by GhostWolfe on Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:48 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
__Kit
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 5:12 am UTC
Location: 16/M/NZ
Contact:

Postby __Kit » Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:46 am UTC

Ah, yes and the point I was getting to with that large story was that, generally, women can say all they want about the appearance of men and it is acceptable, but the vice versa is not the same for men.

I am also glad a woman made this thread. Also the bible is so sexist it blows my mind. This is supposed to be the book people base their lives around.
=]

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Postby cephalopod9 » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:02 am UTC

SilverWolfe wrote:
cephalopod9 wrote:Explain to me how "rights" can go too far?


When your right to call discrimination on someone now prevents them from doing something that you can quite rightly do, and they doing it really is none of your business, then I call shenanigans.


This is not a right I had previously been aware of.
I agree, one groups opinions should not take control or over shadow another's, but is that, strictly speaking, because of their rights? Do you think maybe you might be taking issue with the legal system, or maybe the influencing power that's given to the loudest individuals, or maybe an abscence of corresponding men's rights?

I can't see rights being a bad thing. One person's power over another can be devistating, but I wouldn't classify that as a right.
Image

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:08 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Do you think maybe you might be taking issue with the legal system, or maybe the influencing power that's given to the loudest individuals, or maybe an abscence of corresponding men's rights?

I can't see rights being a bad thing. One person's power over another can be devistating, but I wouldn't classify that as a right.


I'm not sure that nit-picking over my choice of thread title is really relevant.
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Postby cephalopod9 » Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:48 am UTC

I'm sorry, Do you think Women's rights are a bad thing? Is that what you mean to be telling people?

I happen to think word choice is relevant. The words you use inevitably shape the message you're able to get across.
(I'm angrier than I should probably let myself be)

I'll admit I'm bringing outside rantings, but the additude about feminism that gets around pisses me off so much. What would you consider relevant anyway?

There is a problem with invisibility of the majority ("white" is an ethnicity, "straight" is a sexual orientation, male is a gender and so on). I think we agree on the point that more discrimination is not a substitute for equal rights.
Image

User avatar
pollywog
Let's party like it's my postcount
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 10:10 am UTC
Location: Coolest little capital in the world
Contact:

Postby pollywog » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:50 am UTC

__Kit wrote:In New Zealand, there are SO MANY scholarships for Maori and pacific Islanders, and special courses, if you can speak Maori, these scholarships could be going to the people who deserve them - whether they are black or white.


Many of these scholarships are designed to help students who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than others. Maori and PIs are, as a group, poorer than Pakeha. The major thought in liberal NZ about this is that it's good to help someone worse off come up to your level of education, wealth, health etc. There are organisations set up to provide funding for Maori businesses, to help them stay profitable or whatever businesses do. The business I frequent most often (a rock climbing gym) just received one of these funding-things. IMO this is no different to Air New Zealand getting government money to stop it going under. Sometimes people need help to rise up. Or stay out of trouble.
Plus there's a heap of scholarships out there anyway. If you can't find a scholarship in NZ, you ain't shifting enough rocks.

And is it right to refer to women as a minority? They are pretty much an equal part of the population.
suffer-cait wrote:hey, guys?
i'm fucking magic

User avatar
__Kit
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 5:12 am UTC
Location: 16/M/NZ
Contact:

Postby __Kit » Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:58 am UTC

pollywog wrote:
__Kit wrote:In New Zealand, there are SO MANY scholarships for Maori and pacific Islanders, and special courses, if you can speak Maori, these scholarships could be going to the people who deserve them - whether they are black or white.


Many of these scholarships are designed to help students who come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds than others. Maori and PIs are, as a group, poorer than Pakeha. The major thought in liberal NZ about this is that it's good to help someone worse off come up to your level of education, wealth, health etc. There are organisations set up to provide funding for Maori businesses, to help them stay profitable or whatever businesses do. The business I frequent most often (a rock climbing gym) just received one of these funding-things. IMO this is no different to Air New Zealand getting government money to stop it going under. Sometimes people need help to rise up. Or stay out of trouble.
Plus there's a heap of scholarships out there anyway. If you can't find a scholarship in NZ, you ain't shifting enough rocks.

And is it right to refer to women as a minority? They are pretty much an equal part of the population.


Chop? lol
=]

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Jun 27, 2007 9:19 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:I'm sorry, Do you think Women's rights are a bad thing? Is that what you mean to be telling people?

I never said or implied that. Frankly, I'm offended that you seem to have ignored the post content in order to jump down my throat over a poorly-worded title.

cephalopod9 wrote:I happen to think word choice is relevant. The words you use inevitably shape the message you're able to get across.

Word choice is an important issue, I agree with you on that much. In fact, I've spent a long time on word choice in making this post because I realise that in the absence of non-verbal cues from me, my words are going to come off sounding a whole lot more spiteful than I intend them.

I feel certain that my choice of title is probably what has caused you to act like you didn't even read my post. I chose the title on the basis that there are simply so many "names" for various issues around what I wanted to discuss and I felt that "women's rights" would be the one that would most accurately tell people what I wanted to talk about.

cephalopod9 wrote:(I'm angrier than I should probably let myself be)

I'll admit I'm bringing outside rantings, but the additude about feminism that gets around pisses me off so much.

Personally, I think you'd be doing yourself a bigger favor by bringing these issues to the table so we can discuss them - after all, that's why I started the thread - instead of harbouring your resentment and it leaking through as an attack about my thread title.

cephalopod9 wrote:What would you consider relevant anyway?

What I put in my post, that's why I put it there. :P

cephalopod9 wrote:There is a problem with invisibility of the majority ("white" is an ethnicity, "straight" is a sexual orientation, male is a gender and so on). I think we agree on the point that more discrimination is not a substitute for equal rights.

I completely agree with you on this point. There seems to be an inherent flaw in the very concept of minorities because it masks the majority. That's sort of what I was trying to say when I commented that it seems like a lot of men are trying to identify with any minority that will take them, just to have their rights recognised again.

pollywog wrote:And is it right to refer to women as a minority? They are pretty much an equal part of the population.

Actually, I was of the impression that women outnumber men in a lot of societies. It does make you wonder about if they changed the criteria.
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
pollywog
Let's party like it's my postcount
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 10:10 am UTC
Location: Coolest little capital in the world
Contact:

Postby pollywog » Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:20 am UTC

SilverWolfe wrote:
pollywog wrote:And is it right to refer to women as a minority? They are pretty much an equal part of the population.

Actually, I was of the impression that women outnumber men in a lot of societies. It does make you wonder about if they changed the criteria.


For total population, men outnumber women. For young people, men are more, while for older people, women are more. Source

I think what minority means is a group which is underrepresented in the government, popular culture, socioeconomic statistics.
suffer-cait wrote:hey, guys?
i'm fucking magic

User avatar
Alcari
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 3:06 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Postby Alcari » Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:24 am UTC

pollywog wrote:Maori and PIs are, as a group, poorer than Pakeha. The major thought in liberal NZ about this is that it's good to help someone worse off come up to your level of education, wealth, health etc.

So? If they're poorer as a group, that shouldn't give the group any extra benefits. They should give ALL the poor(er) individuals extra benefits.

pollywog wrote:There are organisations set up to provide funding for Maori businesses, to help them stay profitable or whatever businesses do. The business I frequent most often (a rock climbing gym) just received one of these funding-things. IMO this is no different to Air New Zealand getting government money to stop it going under. Sometimes people need help to rise up. Or stay out of trouble.

So, If you're maori and run a bad shop, the government helps out, but if you're white, you're screwed? I don't really think that's fair, If I, as an entrepeneur, make bad decisions and have a bad businessplan, i deserve to go bankrupt.

I can imagine the Maori's neighbors get pretty pissed off, because "that guy" is getting government subsidies, and they're not.
I'm made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions.

free manga and anime music

User avatar
evilbeanfiend
Posts: 2650
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:05 am UTC
Location: the old world

Postby evilbeanfiend » Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:33 am UTC

chrispy1 wrote:As my dear mom says, "We've become so focussed on being Basically Decent, we've become politically INcorrect".

There was a group here in Ontario that pressured the government to change any phrase or word with "man" in it to more "comfortable phrasing". Manhole? Underground Service Entrance. Garbageman? Sanitation Engineer. At what point will we as society go "Whoa, now we're just getting silly"?


the prejudice is everywhere even the word woman has got man in it!
in ur beanz makin u eveel

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Postby cephalopod9 » Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:38 am UTC

Point being, saying the inequality is "women's rights" going too far implies women's rights are a bad thing. Hence I think it's more than nit-picking to say I have a problem with you're title for the thread.

I also feel it's only fair to share that you'fe eagerness to go on the defensive is going to color my interpretation of you're argument. (more than respond to my other points you've pointed out that i'm nit-picking and jumping down your throat)
What qualifies as bringing something to the table? You have something to comment on, so I would think it sufficiently noted. Should it take up more lines, or does it only count if it's in the form of a personal annectdote? Also, you make it sound as though I'm trying to hide the fact that you and your horrendous misuse of the term "right" are making me angry.

Look, I don't agree with a lot of the methods currently in use to bring about social equality, however to say "minority" is a flawed concept seems excedingly sheltered if not outright ignorant. There are people disadvantaged by the current social structure and economic systems. "Minority" not only reffers to the smaller groups, but those with less power. Feel free to point out countries where more women than men are recognized as authority figures, but I'm having trouble thinking of many. While I agree, looking at a problem like "there aren't any female engineers" and giving it a solution like "make it easier for women than men to be engineers" is pretty pathetic, however, "women are getting too many rights" sounds ridiculous. Do you honestly beleive we're to a point where it's all good enough and we can halt progress and just sit on it? I'm not terribly familiar with Australia, but I really do envy you're country if that's the case.

I notice you're examples are pretty devoid of any context. "An" award ceremony doesn't seem like much cause for alarm. If it takes precedence over all other acheivements than I suppose it would be, but you don't give any details.

also, just wondering, what would men get out of having a men only gym?
Image

User avatar
pollywog
Let's party like it's my postcount
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sat May 12, 2007 10:10 am UTC
Location: Coolest little capital in the world
Contact:

Postby pollywog » Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:38 am UTC

Alcari wrote:
pollywog wrote:There are organisations set up to provide funding for Maori businesses, to help them stay profitable or whatever businesses do. The business I frequent most often (a rock climbing gym) just received one of these funding-things. IMO this is no different to Air New Zealand getting government money to stop it going under. Sometimes people need help to rise up. Or stay out of trouble.

So, If you're maori and run a bad shop, the government helps out, but if you're white, you're screwed? I don't really think that's fair, If I, as an entrepeneur, make bad decisions and have a bad businessplan, i deserve to go bankrupt.

I can imagine the Maori's neighbors get pretty pissed off, because "that guy" is getting government subsidies, and they're not.


No, that's not right. The Maori set up an organisation to help businesses out, and one of the criteria was that they had to prove whakapapa, which is like ancestry. It's like a private thing. I assume they get money from donations. The Govt bailed out Air NZ because we needed an airline to get places. Air NZ was a Govt owned thing, but now privately, or semiprivately owned.

Alcari wrote:
pollywog wrote:Maori and PIs are, as a group, poorer than Pakeha. The major thought in liberal NZ about this is that it's good to help someone worse off come up to your level of education, wealth, health etc.


So? If they're poorer as a group, that shouldn't give the group any extra benefits. They should give ALL the poor(er) individuals extra benefits.


Sorry, that came out wrong. All the poorer individuals get benefits, it's just that the poor are overwhelmingly non-white. There is no special benefit for being brown. But there is still far too much benefits going on.
suffer-cait wrote:hey, guys?
i'm fucking magic

User avatar
solarchem
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:57 pm UTC
Location: Northampton, MA
Contact:

Postby solarchem » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:01 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Point being, saying the inequality is "women's rights" going too far implies women's rights are a bad thing. Hence I think it's more than nit-picking to say I have a problem with you're title for the thread.



I notice you're examples are pretty devoid of any context. "An" award ceremony doesn't seem like much cause for alarm. If it takes precedence over all other acheivements than I suppose it would be, but you don't give any details.

also, just wondering, what would men get out of having a men only gym?


I think SW's point in naming the thread was not that women's rights are a bad thing, but the women's rights MOVEMENT or those who claim to be fighting under the banner of women's rights have occasionally gone too far. Regardless of the inequities you still see in society and the need to address those issues, it is still bad if some of the rights that women's groups try to claim end up trampling on the rights of men.

Many men would be more comfortable in a men's only gym for the same reason women's only gyms are so successful. There is less sexual tension or subconscious pressure to look good or say the right things.
Never tell me the odds - Han Solo

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:08 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:Point being, saying the inequality is "women's rights" going too far implies women's rights are a bad thing. Hence I think it's more than nit-picking to say I have a problem with you're title for the thread.

Perhaps it does make that implication. I apologise, as that wasn't my intention. My intention was to suggest that there is some parts of the women's rights movements that have "gone too far". I apologise that my title isn't very clear.

cephalopod9 wrote:What qualifies as bringing something to the table? You have something to comment on, so I would think it sufficiently noted. Should it take up more lines, or does it only count if it's in the form of a personal annectdote? Also, you make it sound as though I'm trying to hide the fact that you and your horrendous misuse of the term "right" are making me angry.

I didn't mean you were "hiding" anything. Only that if you have arguements and opinions, I welcome and invite you to share them with us in the hopes that it will broaden our discussion and enlighten our views.

cephalopod9 wrote:Look, I don't agree with a lot of the methods currently in use to bring about social equality, however to say "minority" is a flawed concept seems excedingly sheltered if not outright ignorant.

That's very interesting, because I was actually trying to agree with the point you were making. Perhaps the wording "concept of minorities" was incorrect, I think I was aiming more towards the "use of the term".

cephalopod9 wrote:..."women are getting too many rights" sounds ridiculous.

I honestly cannot fathom where you got this idea from what I was trying to say. I have attempted to explain that my use of "women's rights" in the title doesn't specifically refer to the "rights of women". Again, I find that I haven't made myself clear.

cephalopod9 wrote:I notice you're examples are pretty devoid of any context. "An" award ceremony doesn't seem like much cause for alarm. If it takes precedence over all other acheivements than I suppose it would be, but you don't give any details.

My apologies. The awards I refer to are an annual ceremony held by my university. It seems to be the only annual awards ceremony (though there are other awards, just not held so highly in regard) held for the teaching staff of the university.

cephalopod9 wrote:also, just wondering, what would men get out of having a men only gym?

The exact same thing that women get out of having a women-only gym perhaps?
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
mister k
Posts: 643
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:28 pm UTC
Contact:

Postby mister k » Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:45 am UTC

OH NOES IT IS SO HARD TO BE WHITE AND MALE THESE DAYS!!! SOMETIMES WOMEN GET SOME MINOR ADVANTAGES OVER MEN- LOOK AT THESE ANECDOTAL EXAMPLES!!!!

Being white and male makes you part of a heavily priveleged and over represented group in society. Thanks to hundreds of years of discrimination we are over represented in every job sector and political position. Yes, discrimination of any form is probably wrong, but I find it hilarious to claim that THAT is the issue at hand. Lets cope with massive pay gaps and the still wide spread domestic abuse of women before moving on to minor examples of discrimination against men, shall we?

User avatar
GhostWolfe
Broken wings and scattered feathers
Posts: 3892
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:56 am UTC
Location: Brisbane, Aust
Contact:

Postby GhostWolfe » Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:06 pm UTC

Why should we tolerate even minor examples of discrimination in our society? Just because there are bigger issues that need our attention doesn't mean that the little ones should be allowed to slide.

That, and I'm not presenting this arguement as an over-represented white male. I'm presenting this opinion as an over-represented but possibly still under privilaged woman.
Linguistic Anarchist
Hawknc: ANGELL IS SERIOUS BUSINESS :-[
lesliesage: Animals dunked in crude oil: sad. Animals dunked in boiling oil: tasty.
Belial: I was in your mom's room all night committing to a series of extended military actions.

User avatar
solarchem
Posts: 439
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 3:57 pm UTC
Location: Northampton, MA
Contact:

Postby solarchem » Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:07 pm UTC

mister k wrote:OH NOES IT IS SO HARD TO BE WHITE AND MALE THESE DAYS!!! SOMETIMES WOMEN GET SOME MINOR ADVANTAGES OVER MEN- LOOK AT THESE ANECDOTAL EXAMPLES!!!!

Being white and male makes you part of a heavily priveleged and over represented group in society. Thanks to hundreds of years of discrimination we are over represented in every job sector and political position. Yes, discrimination of any form is probably wrong, but I find it hilarious to claim that THAT is the issue at hand. Lets cope with massive pay gaps and the still wide spread domestic abuse of women before moving on to minor examples of discrimination against men, shall we?


Um, I don't think the point of the thread was to complain about being white or male. Especially considering it was started by a female.

The point is that the feminists need more focus to their message. Every resource devoted to arguing about whether a men's club has a right to exist takes away from the more important issues such as pay equality. It also turns people away before you've presented the more legitimate rights you're fighting for.
Never tell me the odds - Han Solo

User avatar
TheTankengine
Our Fora-father
Posts: 3328
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 2:09 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, KY
Contact:

Postby TheTankengine » Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:37 pm UTC

Basically this comes down to the fact that everyone wants to be equal. Its just that the groups that have gotten shit on in history want to be more equal, in their favor. Yet they fail to see that faulty logic.
be centered
be compassionate
be interesting

Fat Kat
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 12:38 pm UTC

Postby Fat Kat » Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:40 pm UTC

Awards ceremonies that are only open to "minorities" do little else than highlight the differences between groups of people rather than to promote equality. Essentially, it is just making a big deal out of the fact you belong to a minority, rather than that you have actually achieved something.

We seem to produce an awful lot of rhetoric about "equal opportunities", but we don't seem to have found any other way of doing this apart from giving a little "extra help" to certain groups, at the expense of others. Perhaps one day society will move on and equality will manifest itself (because our attempts to create some sort of artificial equality don't seem to have been welcomed so warmly).

I actually find it rather condescending; it's like saying "you're not good enough to compete against the majority, so here is a special awards ceremony just for you so that you can be recognised too".

It's a little like the case (just to use one example) of people in the engineering community lamenting the lack of female engineers. You can make it as easy as you like to get women into the profession, but if girls don't gain an enthusiasm for the subject when they are young (or are not encouraged to pursue that route), then they will won't join, or will leave just as quickly as they were brought in. That is a problem with society, not with the recruitment policies, so it is unfair to look more favourably upon certain women in this case when the problem is more deep-rooted.

Maybe that is the problem: our methods of dealing with discrimination appear to (and in some cases, do) go too far because the solutions and their wider impact on society are not properly considered.

I don't think that there's much worry of the majority becoming so "discriminated against" that they actually become downtrodden and disadvantaged to any significant degree, but the PERCEPTION that they are getting a bad deal can be a dangerous thing - this only serves to fuel resentment and perpetuate ill-treatment of minorities: including many people that really are deserving of recognition for their own merits.
I've totally pimped your phone, girlfriend!


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests