|
On November 19 2011 02:48 Jibba wrote:
I'm on my terrible phone so my research is not very thorough but here's a couple of quick links aabout the height thing. If I tried to open a PDF, my phone would probably catch on fire.
wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_black_people_taller_than_whites_on_average
m.wisegeek.com/which-country-has-the-tallest-people.htm
Either they are all equal or it is a fact that some are taller than others. Whether I am right about which are taller than which is less relevant than the fact that some are taller than others.
I'm sure we could argue about this for days, but my point is that I'm fairly confident that if I we were talking about intelligence instead of height at least a few people would have called me a racist by now for being open to the idea that some cultures and smarter than others.
|
On November 18 2011 23:48 achristes wrote:
Before I start this rant I would like to state that I am NOT sexist, this is a post to let off some steam about feminists being extremely annoying sometimes
After school today I went to a bus stop where I saw a minibus with this...thing painted on the back:
"Deprimerte kvinner shopper eller spiser, mens deprimerte menn erobrer landområder. Det er en helt forskjellig måte å tenke på!"
which basicly translates into:
"Depressed women shop or eat, while depressed men conquer territory. It is a completely different way of thinking!"
(Keep in mind this is not a direct quote, but it was something like that)
Now, WTF is that all about? I thought some women wanted equality and they bring up this kind of shit?
Reminds me of Susanne Bratli (Ap/Labour party) who wanted to restrict young men from driving in the dark, have a passenger and she wanted to install alcohol and speed-locks on all cars. Just young men, as if all young men are the reason to all the accidents, and nothing was mentioned about some of those stupid ass ladies who text/put on make-up while driving!
And I must say it's stupid how some women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities. Even if the guy isn't found guilty, she's still managed to keep him from most jobs, wasted his time and wrecked his reputation.
Some feminists even say that in every major corporations administration there has to be an equal amount of men and women, which is retarded IMO. The position as board member (or whatever it's called) should NOT and I repeat NOT be given just because they happen to be male/female, it should be based upon skill and determination (IE it should be because they deserved it, not because they are X gender)
Is it even possible to accuse a woman of sexism? I don't think I've ever seen it before even though sometimes it would be the proper response.
I think that about sums it up for my rage, if you are a woman/girl reading this please don't be offended as I tried as best as I could not to generalize you, I know there's alot of good female drivers and board members. I love women/girls and probably couldn't live without them and I also want equality, but what I've written about above is NOT equality.
<3 You
PS
Don't whine if the title doesn't entirely represent my text, there's no way for me to change the title anyway.
(Fe)male == Female/male, it is the way I meant it atleast.
All of the "some" are added because of bitching about me generalizing when some people didn't bother to read the entire post.
I'm a programmer. Whilst studying at uni there were 3 girls on my course of 250 people. In 12 years since i have only worked with one girl who could write sql. I love working with women because they often do have a subtely different approach to problems in general. Recently found out that historically a lot of programmers were female ... not anymore. Since then programming has become the realm of the geek. Some people have suggested it was because companies started to make them work from home (this is in 70's and 80's) which meant being in the house etc and numbers declined then the image of the programmer changed. Now programmers like to be called software engineers because the idea of a programmer is a drone inputting someone elses requirements (none of this freestyle untestable php/js shit).
You have missed the pint of the add ... its worse than you think imo. They are aiming to *create* the distinction between men and women as its a marketing tool to identify yourself with something as opposed to something else.
Is is possible for a black dude to be racist? Then yeah its possible for a woman to be sexist, its just that noone would know as noone listens to em anyway ;p
BTW most of the problems of gender equality have really gone now (in uk anyway) imo - when i visit italy for instance i can see that attitudes are very different - but that is true from both sides, they have a different dance (and i cant comment on equality there as i really have no idea how they think or work). I Keep getting into arguments with the missus. Things like equal pay ... well women actually aspire to less and demand less pay which is why they are paid less (ie they pre persecute themselves) ... then you look at the doled up tarts on a saturday night that clearly like the differences ... Eg my missus refuses to ask for a pay rise. I keep telling her to man up or shut up about feminism and gender inequality and get me a beer.
The real problem i find is that women can do whatever the fuck they want but men cant do girly things. Eg staying at home to raise the kids is hard work if your a guy. Everything is geared up for women ... then you have all their stupid overblown fear of pervs (esp when kids are around).
They don't want equality, they wan the choice to throw it away if they want. What they don't realise is that they have already done that. If there wasn't equality these 'feminists' wouldn't be able to be as vocal as they are. What they don't realise is that most are trying to live up to real feminists that did do courageous things because they feel inferior to them. They should because they will never be bale to make the noise they did as situations have changed massively. Yes, im saying its vagina envy ... or put another way just another vitrolic outlet.
Besides I dont want to treat women like men. They wouldn't like that.
As for the some cultures being smarter than others well you ahve no way to measure that. What you are measuring is a cultures intelligence as a function of their place in society. When you look at statistics in america for IQ's the difference between white and black is shocking. But then you have the figure out what was actually measured. All those figures really show is how badly black americans are educated - and that to me is depressing. I can guarantee you that if you gave me an IQ test now I could increase my score within 2 months by training. That would show they are a function of knowledge and practise at a specific set of skills. It is unfair to give a tribal culture an IQ test for instance. It is unfair to present an IQ test in a foreign language. IQ is nonsense. Over there the phrase 'wrong side of the tracks' is visibly true - I don't notice the effects of segregation in the uk ... in the south of the states it is still really obvious and why race discrimination is such a problem. In UK i dont think people have a clue what a real race problem is.
I would say the height thing is similar to what i just said about IQ also - but to a degree that requires a *lot* more time. If you look at english peoples heights over the years they change massivley due to plague etc. So height is not a function of race, its a function of social/cultural evolution
Do races have differences ... YES. Just look at them damn it. End of argument. If that makes me a racist it makes you a moron. Does that mean you can infer to the individual? Not really because variance inside each gene pool is probably many factors higher in deciding specific 'stats' of people. Also at the end of the day we have interbred so many many times we are all basically the same and probably have only 2-3 groups as ancestors.
|
On November 19 2011 03:05 ComaDose wrote:
In order to be sexist against a man you would first have to create a culture that oppresses men for thousands of years.
No, you wouldn't. You would just need to be prejudiced, stereotype, or discriminate against men on the basis of sex.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 19 2011 03:03 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 02:35 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote:
I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans. The fact is that some cultures are genetically predisposed to be taller than others. If that is a controversial statement then people should blame Darwin and/or the God of their choice.
Not cultures, ethnicities. That is a huge difference. You're comparing cultural issues to ethnic ones.
|
On November 18 2011 23:48 achristes wrote:
it's stupid how some women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities.
The only thing that's stupid here is your reasoning.
You obviously haven't been in contact with the world of careerism or you'd know that coming forth as a victim is career suicide #1.
Oh and you know another annoying thing?
"it's stupid how some women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities."
"it's stupid how some young boys can just accuse their priest of raping them if they want to destroy their reputation/job possibilities."
"it's stupid how some children can just accuse their parent(s) of raping them if they want to destroy their reputation/home."
^ See the pattern? It's so obvious that it's a good thing to have a system where such accusations carry weight, especially with the burden placed on the victim that comes forth. It's so obvious it's embarrassing to have to point out.
This is about as connected with the real world as the "bitches who steal a mans semen and shove it into themselves to get pregnant"-thread.
|
@Thrill
Yeah, I can see that it sounds kind of stupid :S
***Editing***
|
On November 19 2011 03:29 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:03 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 02:35 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote:
I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans. The fact is that some cultures are genetically predisposed to be taller than others. If that is a controversial statement then people should blame Darwin and/or the God of their choice. Not cultures, ethnicities. That is a huge difference. You're comparing cultural issues to ethnic ones.
Cultures are genetically based.
|
On November 19 2011 03:39 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:29 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 03:03 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 02:35 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote:
I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans. The fact is that some cultures are genetically predisposed to be taller than others. If that is a controversial statement then people should blame Darwin and/or the God of their choice. Not cultures, ethnicities. That is a huge difference. You're comparing cultural issues to ethnic ones. Cultures are genetically based.
I hope this is a joke.
|
On November 19 2011 03:45 Fuhrmaaj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:39 RageBot wrote:On November 19 2011 03:29 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 03:03 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 02:35 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote:
I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans. The fact is that some cultures are genetically predisposed to be taller than others. If that is a controversial statement then people should blame Darwin and/or the God of their choice. Not cultures, ethnicities. That is a huge difference. You're comparing cultural issues to ethnic ones. Cultures are genetically based. I hope this is a joke.
If so, it's not even a funny one : /
|
On November 19 2011 03:31 Thrill wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 23:48 achristes wrote:
it's stupid how some women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities. The only thing that's stupid here is your reasoning. You obviously haven't been in contact with the world of careerism or you'd know that coming forth as a victim is career suicide #1. Oh and you know another annoying thing? "it's stupid how some women can just accuse someone of raping them if they want to destroy someones reputation/job possibilities." "it's stupid how some young boys can just accuse their priest of raping them if they want to destroy their reputation/job possibilities." "it's stupid how some children can just accuse their parent(s) of raping them if they want to destroy their reputation/home." ^ See the pattern? It's so obvious that it's a good thing to have a system where such accusations carry weight, especially with the burden placed on the victim that comes forth. It's so obvious it's embarrassing to have to point out. This is about as connected with the real world as the "bitches who steal a mans semen and shove it into themselves to get pregnant"-thread.
A friend of mine who's a police officer recently told me how extremely common it is (in Norway) for women to falsely accuse men of raping them. Even though they in most cases discover the truth, the guys' reputations are almost always destroyed in the process. This has, however nothing to do with gender equality, and it's very sad to see that police resources are wasted on investigating false reports when there is a big problem with actual rapes in Oslo these days.
Of course it's a good thing to have a system where accusations of this nature carries weight, but people rarely if ever seem to consider how false accusations hurt both the people being wrongly accused, and especially the people who actually are raped, molested etc. and later experience doubt from the police as to whether or not the rape actually took place.
|
On November 19 2011 03:29 Fission wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:05 ComaDose wrote:
In order to be sexist against a man you would first have to create a culture that oppresses men for thousands of years. No, you wouldn't. You would just need to be prejudiced, stereotype, or discriminate against men on the basis of sex.
I dont think you understand the problem if you think that.
The point is that society IS a patriacal society. Women give birth, are soft cuddly creatures that men cherish. Men are the meat eaters that generally put food on the table and dont like wussy things like knitting.
Nobody thinks really buff women are attractive (and im not talking about tom boys).
I could go on and on and on ... Its really deep cultural embedding.
This is why i just said i don't think UK understands race problems. Calling a black guy a nigger aitn a very nice thing to do but if you think that's what racism is about you have missed the point. When you look at countries that have real racism it means that you are literally fucked if you get born into the wrong race or caste. Its about society systematically (whether they know it or not) trating some group differently to the point that ****nobody notices anymore because it is normal****. You cannot see it or know it if you live in it unless something jolts you out of your usual habits.
Imagine the daily life of a man and women in an amazonian tribe. You will have a lot of trouble with the details of who does what and it will probably have more in common with your life then theirs (and there is nothing wrong with that because how can you make something up without depending on your experiences and preconceptions?).
So no if you did wha tyou say your being a dick, and you are being sexist or whatever ... but for it to be a real problem it has to be part of business as usual in a society. Its like slavery ... some slaves are probably very happy with their lives. So who are you to say slavery is wrong?
|
[B]On November 18 2011 23:48 achristes wrote:
"Depressed women shop or eat, while depressed men conquer territory. It is a completely different way of thinking!"
I guess they forgot about Catherine the Great, Queen Victoria, Margaret Thatcher, Joan of Arc, etc.
|
Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right?
Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here?
|
On November 19 2011 03:51 MrTortoise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:29 Fission wrote:On November 19 2011 03:05 ComaDose wrote:
In order to be sexist against a man you would first have to create a culture that oppresses men for thousands of years. No, you wouldn't. You would just need to be prejudiced, stereotype, or discriminate against men on the basis of sex. I dont think you understand the problem if you think that. The point is that society IS a patriacal society. Women give birth, are soft cuddly creatures that men cherish. Men are the meat eaters that generally put food on the table and dont like wussy things like knitting. Nobody thinks really buff women are attractive (and im not talking about tom boys). I could go on and on and on ... Its really deep cultural embedding. This is why i just said i don't think UK understands race problems. Calling a black guy a nigger aitn a very nice thing to do but if you think that's what racism is about you have missed the point. When you look at countries that have real racism it means that you are literally fucked if you get born into the wrong race or caste. Its about society systematically (whether they know it or not) trating some group differently to the point that ****nobody notices anymore because it is normal****. You cannot see it or know it if you live in it unless something jolts you out of your usual habits. Imagine the daily life of a man and women in an amazonian tribe. You will have a lot of trouble with the details of who does what and it will probably have more in common with your life then theirs (and there is nothing wrong with that because how can you make something up without depending on your experiences and preconceptions?). So no if you did wha tyou say your being a dick, and you are being sexist or whatever ... but for it to be a real problem it has to be part of business as usual in a society. Its like slavery ... some slaves are probably very happy with their lives. So who are you to say slavery is wrong?
I understand what you are saying MrTortoise, and I agree with you on some points. Keep in mind though, that even in the absence of a systematic social sexist stance, it is still possible to be sexist against men. Is 'society' sexist against men? Likely not, and I'm not arguing that. There is still work to be done in terms of gender rights and equality, and it will probably take many years more of struggle.
However, with this said, if an employer refused to hire a man for a nursing position solely because he was a man, and for no other reason, it would still be sexism. This is obviously just an example of a direct application of the definition of sexism. If you disagree that it this kind of scenario is sexist, what word would you use to describe it?
|
On November 19 2011 03:58 Fission wrote:
I understand what you are saying MrTortoise, and I agree with you on some points. Keep in mind though, that even in the absence of a systematic social sexist stance, it is still possible to be sexist against men. Is 'society' sexist against men? Likely not, and I'm not arguing that. There is still work to be done in terms of gender rights and equality, and it will probably take many years more of struggle.
However, with this said, if an employer refused to hire a man for a nursing position solely because he was a man, and for no other reason, it would still be sexism. This is obviously just an example of a direct application of the definition of sexism. If you disagree that it this kind of scenario is sexist, what word would you use to describe it?
We agree, I don't think common language has the words that sufficiently separate the ideas to tell the truth. Would be interested to know of a language that does distinguish them though. I do think that they are different and i am pretty sure that you and the original person you quoted were talking about different things though. That's all i wanted to highlight.
I think you did well calling it a social or cultural sexism - and i doubt anyone outside this thread would know what you meant immediately though.
|
I'm pissed at the extremists who say calling a manhole a manhole is being sexist. Other than that I think its pretty terrible the working conditions females have had to put up with to this very day. It has gotten a lot better but there are still a lot of places left where discrimination based on gender exists.
You have some pretty good points though.
|
On November 19 2011 04:14 OmniEulogy wrote:
I'm pissed at the extremists who say calling a manhole a manhole is being sexist. Other than that I think its pretty terrible the working conditions females have had to put up with to this very day. It has gotten a lot better but there are still a lot of places left where discrimination based on gender exists.
You have some pretty good points though.
I agree with you, I don't think females should be discriminated in any way, I'm just starting to worry a little bit about this "Fem-Pride" or whatever you should call it. "-Pride" is almost universally a bad sign (IE White-Pride, Black-Pride etc)
|
On November 19 2011 03:57 achristes wrote:
Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right?
Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here?
Most racists will tell you that Asians and Jews are the smartest and blacks are the strongest despite being white themselves, but they mostly use shaky evidence and confirmation bias so I wouldn't listen to that.
There are very few "White Supremacists" among white racists and the ones that do exist use even worse arguments about culture and creativity and stuff.
Also, there are a lot of women who are sexist against women, think women should be subservient to their men, etc. So a very large amount of racists and sexists do not believe they are superior.
|
On November 19 2011 03:45 Fuhrmaaj wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:39 RageBot wrote:On November 19 2011 03:29 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 03:03 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 02:35 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 02:05 BlackJack wrote:On November 19 2011 01:37 Jibba wrote:On November 19 2011 01:24 BlackJack wrote:
I don't have a problem with saying that statistically men are more reckless drivers. What I have a problem with is why is it okay to say that but if I were to say that blacks commit more crimes or women excel less at math, suddenly I am the racist or sexist. Statistics that target a group are only racist if that group is disadvantaged? How dumb is that? Insurance companies hedge bets based on relatively thorough research. Humans do not and with crime in particular, the statistics are heavily slanted and are often used by assholes to cite a natural inclination. You can say that statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes. You can also say that white CEOs are more likely to commit fraud. But only one of those likelihoods gets over-exaggerated to fit people's moods and "gut" feeling. The chance of being assaulted by anyone, white or black, is incredibly low but racist people largely over-estimate that value. If someone really wanted to use the numbers to evaluate their risk of being assaulted, then black people should fear black people the most. Statistically, the chances of a white person being assaulted by a black person is astronomically low, and probably lower than being assaulted by another white person. The problem is people stop at the statistical level that most fits their agenda. In the case of driving, insurance companies' agenda is not losing too much money, which is at least more rational than the above situation. The risks associated with crime and car accidents are on completely different levels. There was a girl from Harvard that was ostracized because she had the audacity to consider that blacks could be genetically predisposed to having a lower IQ than whites. If she had said that blacks are genetically predisposed to run faster and be taller than whites nobody would have said a word. Uh... I think they would have. The issue was brought up all the time in the 90s; there's numerous SI articles about it. At least it's beginning to go both ways now. People say Michael Phelps was "designed for swimming" as if he's a mutant or his mom got pregnant by a merman, and didn't just shape his body and muscles that way by swimming and training vigorously his entire life. So you're saying that people would still have a problem if someone were to say that blacks are genetically predisposed to be taller than whites (or asians)? How can this be anything but fact at this point? It's not like there is some factor like diet making a difference since Africans are the most likely to be malnourished. How can somebody have a problem with a fact or what am I missing that makes this not a fact? Where's the fact? Look at pygmey tribes in Africa. And against certain polynesian tribes? There are subgroups with different characteristics but it's not by skin color. Some african subsets are more genetically similar to east asians than they are to other black people or africans. The fact is that some cultures are genetically predisposed to be taller than others. If that is a controversial statement then people should blame Darwin and/or the God of their choice. Not cultures, ethnicities. That is a huge difference. You're comparing cultural issues to ethnic ones. Cultures are genetically based. I hope this is a joke.
Well, you can't have culture without genetics first. But of course, that doesn't mean that genetics have caused all cultural differences. Then this is all made more complicated by the fact that culture and genetics interact. That said, any simplistic view, whether on the side of cultural controlling all human differences or genetic essentialism is certainly wrong.
In our example, height has strong heritability. Pygmies are genetically (or at least epigenitcally) distinct from other Africans in this area: This is not (at least primarily) a cultural issue. It is a genetic/ethnic one. Ethnicity != Skin Color.
|
On November 19 2011 04:25 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2011 03:57 achristes wrote:
Sexism == Believing you are superior to other people because of your sex...right?
Just like racism == Believing you are superior to X "race" because you are Y "race", or have I missed something here? Most racists will tell you that Asians and Jews are the smartest and blacks are the strongest despite being white themselves, but they mostly use shaky evidence and confirmation bias so I wouldn't listen to that. There are very few "White Supremacists" among white racists and the ones that do exist use even worse arguments about culture and creativity and stuff. Also, there are a lot of women who are sexist against women, think women should be subservient to their men, etc. So a very large amount of racists and sexists do not believe they are superior.
If I say black professional 100m runners are faster on average does that make me racist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
