Ian Butler wrote:
Totally agree with you here. What's wrong with fakes if it looks the same? I mean, Jeez, it's just something to look at. I don't want anything standing on my dresser that an animal suffered from.
Well, that's actually not true, because when we use computers, wear clothes with a label and consume things from Coca-Cola etc, we condone the suffering of other people and animals and the environment that comes with it...
Of course it is not only the wild life. Most people deliberately ignore the important stuff and extremely care about nonsense. Spending millions on beauty and wellness products, cloths and more just to "look good" instead of just going to bed on time, doing some sports and having some good time with your friends and family.
Edited by Lachi on 01-03-2013 14:34
wackojackohighcliffe wrote:
But if the men who are already dominant in parliament/business etc. can't see past their prejudices and judge women for their abilities and not view them as lesser beings then quotas are an effective way of bringing things in line and giving women the opportunity to demonstrate that they are just as able as the men who are in charge.
Yeah, it is bit of circle, but i see more and more women coming high in the czech business for example, so maybe it is going better. Politics-wise, majority of female politicians are specialed here on family rights and so, somewhat contra-productive work,as there is no woman politician,who seems able or willing to do politics as whole, rather help other women and family issues.Strange...
This brings me to something. I think that biggest problem of women being targets of sexism, are another women. Those who are paid for being just dolls without thinking (models, pornstars, some percentage of singers/actresses) or those women, whose only dream is to marry a wealthy men. One can hardly deny, there are still plenty of women, who are trying to win something for them by their body and sexy look,rather than different abilities.
So it is hard to get rid of sexism, when you still have those half naked girls everywhere, exposed like some trophies....
Not even speaking about natural reactions and rooted things from the past centuries, one cannot simply get rid of them and this process is extremely slow, it can take more centuries actually.
Still if there are women that want to get rid of sexism, they should start to let the other women know and stop their exploiting, like they were thing and not human being.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
This brings me to something. I think that biggest problem of women being targets of sexism, are another women. Those who are paid for being just dolls without thinking (models, pornstars, some percentage of singers/actresses) or those women, whose only dream is to marry a wealthy men. One can hardly deny, there are still plenty of women, who are trying to win something for them by their body and sexy look,rather than different abilities.
So it is hard to get rid of sexism, when you still have those half naked girls everywhere, exposed like some trophies....
While I agree that those women aren't really helping, it's still men's obligation to be intelligent enough to seperate the images that those women create from the women we meet every day.
Of course there is a certain percentage of women probably doesn't give a damn whether or not they're seen as objects, and who even benefit from that, but it's a very small part and it surely isn't the job of every other women to get them to stop so that we men can finally stop acting sexist
As for quotas, I think it's very difficult. I could imagine that some women in top position won't get the recognition and the others will think she only got the job because of the quota, whether that is true or not. I can't say much on the daily sexism that women may experience since I haven't entered work yet. But it seems to me that a quota for the high management positions only treats the symptoms. It should be more about breaking the whole role model of the old paternalistic societies. And here I agree with you again, Avin, that is a process that can take a long time. But in my opinion, it has to be done, and it has to be promoted.
cunego59 wrote:
While I agree that those women aren't really helping, it's still men's obligation to be intelligent enough to seperate the images that those women create from the women we meet every day.
Of course there is a certain percentage of women probably doesn't give a damn whether or not they're seen as objects, and who even benefit from that, but it's a very small part and it surely isn't the job of every other women to get them to stop so that we men can finally stop acting sexist
As for quotas, I think it's very difficult. I could imagine that some women in top position won't get the recognition and the others will think she only got the job because of the quota, whether that is true or not. I can't say much on the daily sexism that women may experience since I haven't entered work yet. But it seems to me that a quota for the high management positions only treats the symptoms. It should be more about breaking the whole role model of the old paternalistic societies. And here I agree with you again, Avin, that is a process that can take a long time. But in my opinion, it has to be done, and it has to be promoted.
It is hard really, this is again Uroboros like circle, which is very hard to be broken on some place.
But from my expriences, i dont agree with that women being a small part. I meet women every day and i have a feeling that those who act from position of their bautiful gender and thus somewhat confirm sexism of some men, are rather large percentage. But no majority at least...
While i agree with you completly, that paternalistic models should be broken (still doing that by quotas is stupid imo), again there is one doubt from my side. When this model will be broken, should man still be recognized as head of the family, who is the one securing his family?
Because what is ridicolous, is that i met some girls, who want to be recognized as completly level with their boyfriends, when it comes to decision making, or all the ordinary stuff, but when it comes to paying the bills,or in restaurant, they are suddenly those little dolls, who should be payed for. So do we want genders to be level at everything,or only where it one gender benefits from it?
Personal note: One main reason why i have 10 years long loving relationship, is that we are completly level in all aspects of life with my girlfriend. Sometimes i pay in the grocery, sometimes she pays in the restaurant. Sometimes i am crying on her shoulder, sometimes i am holding the door for her. We make our decisions together, her voice has the same importance and usually i am the one leaving my position to please her.
This is what it shoud be in my idealistic view, shamefully it can be hardly applied on whole system.
Woman are generally more sexist than men at this point sometimes I feel. They pride on the fact they are women and can get voted in based solely on that. They also use the idea that they are women and men are stupid as their campaign a lot. And jobs have to take more women. This is unreasonable because a 110 lb firefighter is not going to be able to carry a 200 lb man out of a burning building. It's the same thing with race. There were t-shirts in 2008 that said, "vote for Obama or you're a racist." Anyone who voted for him based on that is a racist. You can't have it both ways.
Edited by baseballlover312 on 04-03-2013 21:01
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
High profile American women in politics include? Hillary Clinton? Is she it? Maybe Condoleeza Rice. Clinton's personal favorability ratings have been around 66%. Rice is up there too. You don't get that from guilt tripping. And as for your stupid hypothetical of a 110 pound firefighter not being capable of doing the job, that was the same argument used to justify keeping women out of combat roles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then they called female soldiers to the Hill to testify, with their chests bedecked in medals from their heroic acts under fire. Those women soldiers pointed out the idiocy of the "they can't do the job because they are women" argument, pointing out that they had been doing the job anyways, even though the military said they couldn't.
And as for the issue of racism 1) you and I are white, and have no place whining about racism 2) it doesn't help that there were very public incidents of racism, on a regular basis mind you, in 2008. Even in 2012, I remember seeing a picture of a Romney supporter wearing a shirt that said "Put the White back in the White House."
You made huge generalizations, and used hyperbole to make an argument. My post stands. Bias goes both ways. I have a feminist friend who is a Muslim. You don't think she gets dirty looks when her Hijab doesn't cover her full face, or from non-muslims who see that she is wearing a Hijab at all? I would contend that she face more discrimination than you. Suck it up. You're white and male in the United States of America. You and I have nothing to whine about.
If you think that an average women has as mucys trenghth as an average man, you are delusional. A person should be based on performance, not sex. If they can do it, fine, but if they can't they shouldn't be there.
Yeah, I'm a white male. One time my cousin got a promotion at work. Usually you get a raise with this, so he was wondering why he didn't. When he asked they told him his two predecessors were either female or black, so him being white they didn't feel he should get a raise. That's not discrimination?
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
First you are counting hispanic people too and second, i was talking about future (20-30years), while i know that was not clear from it.
But it does not matter, racism is coming from both sides and both is bad.
Remember, these are offcial records.
Oh crap that was bad, I'm calling that one.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Levi4life wrote:
High profile American women in politics include? Hillary Clinton? Is she it? Maybe Condoleeza Rice. Clinton's personal favorability ratings have been around 66%. Rice is up there too. You don't get that from guilt tripping. And as for your stupid hypothetical of a 110 pound firefighter not being capable of doing the job, that was the same argument used to justify keeping women out of combat roles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then they called female soldiers to the Hill to testify, with their chests bedecked in medals from their heroic acts under fire. Those women soldiers pointed out the idiocy of the "they can't do the job because they are women" argument, pointing out that they had been doing the job anyways, even though the military said they couldn't.
And as for the issue of racism 1) you and I are white, and have no place whining about racism 2) it doesn't help that there were very public incidents of racism, on a regular basis mind you, in 2008. Even in 2012, I remember seeing a picture of a Romney supporter wearing a shirt that said "Put the White back in the White House."
You made huge generalizations, and used hyperbole to make an argument. My post stands. Bias goes both ways. I have a feminist friend who is a Muslim. You don't think she gets dirty looks when her Hijab doesn't cover her full face, or from non-muslims who see that she is wearing a Hijab at all? I would contend that she face more discrimination than you. Suck it up. You're white and male in the United States of America. You and I have nothing to whine about.
And I didn 't make this clear, but I was talking about local politicians in my region.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
First you are counting hispanic people too and second, i was talking about future (20-30years), while i know that was not clear from it.
But it does not matter, racism is coming from both sides and both is bad.
Edit: Oficial records says 63.7% in 2010
Yeah, read the records wrong. 63.7% means my point still stands though...
baseballlover312 wrote:
If you think that an average women has as mucys trenghth as an average man, you are delusional. A person should be based on performance, not sex. If they can do it, fine, but if they can't they shouldn't be there.
Yeah, I'm a white male. One time my cousin got a promotion at work. Usually you get a raise with this, so he was wondering why he didn't. When he asked they told him his two predecessors were either female or black, so him being white they didn't feel he should get a raise. That's not discrimination?
1) If a person can do the job, that's all that matters. You said that a female firefighter can't do the job in your hypothetical situation. I might add, its a situation that assumes the human body can only lift/drag what it weighs, which is a silly assumption. It also assumes that most female firefighters weigh in at 110 lbs.
2) I'm going to make an assumption for the sake of expediency, and assume that the black person/woman who preceded your cousin got raises and he didn't, as opposed to the more apparent alternative which I had assumed as soon as I had read your paragraph, which was that he was being treated just like his predecessors, and that they didn't get raises either.
And seeing as this situation is unverifiable, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. What I assumed you meant, assuming it's true, would be discrimination. Fortunately for the white male population in this country, we, on average, still get paid more, and occupy better positions than our female and people of color counterparts. Your cousin is an exception.
Can't you see the irony of the white male majority population of this country whining about being discriminated against? Perhaps when it's a wide spread thing we might actually try to do something about discrimination. Perhaps your cousin's experience has you clamoring to close the pay gap between men and women? I believe the difference is around 30%.
I've just finished reading an article in a newspaper written by someone from "Antirasitisk Senter" (Centre for Anti-Racism) about "everyday-racism".
It was about the experiences that 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants in Norway has had. Muslims being turned down for 20 or so jobs and appartments, colored people being arrested for, and this is an actual quote, "crossing the street in an agressive manner", etc.
What got to me the most wasn't really the article itself, but rather the comments in the comment section. Even though those people are simply a tiny, tiny minority it still amazes me how ignorant some people can be. Of about 400 comments, I'de say that roughly 3/4 were negative towards immigrants (dark-skinned immigrants, that is) and about half of them were people trying to make excuses.
I don't know how many comments I read that said something along the lines of "Yeah, but Africans can be racist against white people too", "Hey, I'm a white, heterosexual male and I didn't get the job I applied for and I didn't cry", and of course the obligatory "But it's in their culture and nature to be violent and opposing of white, western people".
Genocide is one of the worst crimes that can be commited, but if there ever is another one I hope they target rascist of types.
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
