At which point does discrimination reverse?

[Raider5678]

1 - Of the various industries I listed Navy SEALS account for less than a a tenth of a single percent of people. Even amongst men there are very large disparities in physical strength and overall health. The argument that men a are stronger than women, in my opinion, has never made sense. Every individual has differences and while there are minimum levels of fitness required to perform various tasks there are few jobs where a maximum level of fitness is superior. Perhaps amongst athletes in the NBA, NFL, and etc but not amongst Electrician's, Structural Engineers, and etc which employ far more people. You are using fringe examples to justify at large trends.

 

2 - Generations of treatment is not an issue because today some girls are encourage?

 

3 - No, it is men's fault. Men are the ones who spent generations keeping women out of the workforce. Women didn't even have the right to vote until less than a hundred years ago, Yale and Princeton first admitted women in 1969, Harvard in 1977, and etc. If is not the fault of men that women were kept out of various industries and denied opportunities given to men whose fault was it, god's?

1 - Oooook. This is pointless, but I'll say it again. I'm not saying all men are stronger then women. I'm not saying there are not strong women. But on a NATIONAL average, men are stronger then women. DO you disagree with this statement? You shouldn't, as its been proven. Now if your on a job the requires alot of physical strength, are you more likely to hire women or men? Which group is more likely to fit the bill? Based off of a national average, I think if its a physical job, employers get a little slack there, ok? As for electricians, structural engineers, and etc, its usually based off of if they have a the degree in the field. And as you said before, in past generations women were not encouraged, even discouraged, at going into a field like that.

 

2- Dismissing current change at resolving the issue so you can keep moping over what it was like at previous times. Yes. Brilliant. That's like saying efforts to recycle and making renewable energy is pointless because for years before that we have used fossil fuels. Its illogical, pointless, and is simply trying to find a point to argue about. People are trying to make a difference, and then people like you simply dismiss it because, when you were a kid, it wasn't like it is today. Please, explain the reasoning. Even today women are being encouraged to go back to college. Colleges accept people based off of grades and money, not gender. SO please, that is a terrible take of the current situation.

 

3- A hundred years ago, yes, women could not vote. That has changed, in case you didn't realize. and 40 years ago, is still again, not today. And dismissing the efforts of today is just as bad.

 

Sorry, but I don't believe this. I think you're embellishing.

 

My research shows that the term "prick" is just what I said it was, another word for "jerk" or "asshole". "Prick" isn't a generic term, but it certainly doesn't imply the reverse of what "slut" implies. Even though it's also a term for genitals, the epithet "prick" doesn't have a sexual basis. "Slut" always does.

Then I would say its probably a localized thing for me, my bad. Though, on a larger note, while women were encouraged to be housewives, what were men encouraged to do? Work, get jobs, support a family, get married, and have children. Women? Stay at home housewives, raise children, among others. There were social standards held to both sexes. And if you didn't meet this standard? You were a failure, worthless, weak, and pitiful. You were lower then the lowest, not wanted by anyone, rejected by house, family, and society.

 

 

This points out that men are also held to social standards. Being strong, getting a job, supporting a family, getting married, and having children is still very much imprinted on us. Though NOW, we are told to go to college. SO are girls, but Ten Oz dismisses this because he decided he wanted to. There is a lot that is going against women, but there's also things going against men. They way we perceive these things is different because we grew up with them. If a women was suddenly subject to these expectations, it would be different. Now in modern day, what are women "suppose" to do? Pretty much anything they like. Same as men. This is the way I see it, as for my friend, who is a girl. Neither of us see much of a difference as much as is stated by many people.

You brought it up as an example and it is an example I do not agree. I do not see have BLM is an example of reverse racism or discrimination. BLM is about the way they (members and supporters of BLM) feel black people are treated by police. I don't understannd how a group whom is asking that black people not be mistreated is somehow being discriminatory in the reserve? They are not advocating that other races be mistreated. Perhaps you disagree with them. Perhaps you feel blacks are treated fair by police and BLM is advocating a useless point. That is fine. That doesn't make BLM racists in the reserve. I think you are confusing your opinion of their message with mistreatment. They are not advocating discrimination against you.

Do you not get the point I was making...... Not all police actively target every single black man they see so that they can shoot him in the back and laugh. Nor does every single police man actively try and make every black persons life a living hell simply because they can. They are here to protect us. There are bad cops, that does not make every single one of them bad. BLM is taking this way to personally and claiming every time something happens between a black man and a police officer is racist and is subject to examination.

 

See what I just said? I am not saying that. You seem to be implying I am. I. Am. Not. Saying. That. Do you understand???? Violent riots, are not helping the situation. Violent riots are started by a group mentality, that transforms into an Us vs them Mentality. That, is what I am saying. Stop. Saying. I'm. Saying. Something. Else.

 

Do you understand? I can say it again.

The group mentality the BLM creates, is not helping their cause. It leads to fights because of a Us vs Them mentality. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEIR MESSAGE!

Groups like them have a tendency to create the mentality. That mentality, does not help. So a recap:

 

Group mentality = bad

Us vs Them mentality = bad

 

So please, stop including their message, inside the argument. For peats sake.

[Ten oz]

1 - Oooook. This is pointless, but I'll say it again. I'm not saying all men are stronger then women. I'm not saying there are not strong women. But on a NATIONAL average, men are stronger then women. DO you disagree with this statement? You shouldn't, as its been proven. Now if your on a job the requires alot of physical strength, are you more likely to hire women or men? Which group is more likely to fit the bill? Based off of a national average, I think if its a physical job, employers get a little slack there, ok? As for electricians, structural engineers, and etc, its usually based off of if they have a the degree in the field. And as you said before, in past generations women were not encouraged, even discouraged, at going into a field like that.

 

2- Dismissing current change at resolving the issue so you can keep moping over what it was like at previous times. Yes. Brilliant. That's like saying efforts to recycle and making renewable energy is pointless because for years before that we have used fossil fuels. Its illogical, pointless, and is simply trying to find a point to argue about. People are trying to make a difference, and then people like you simply dismiss it because, when you were a kid, it wasn't like it is today. Please, explain the reasoning. Even today women are being encouraged to go back to college. Colleges accept people based off of grades and money, not gender. SO please, that is a terrible take of the current situation.

 

3- A hundred years ago, yes, women could not vote. That has changed, in case you didn't realize. and 40 years ago, is still again, not today. And dismissing the efforts of today is just as bad.

How does being physically stronger than someone else make that person a better electrician, crane operator, Information Technician, plumber, welder, and etc? Most all jobs require a minimum physical ability which consists of having normal mobility, dexterity, balance, color vision, hearing, and etc but very few jobs require a maximum. In very few professions does the ability to bench press 200lbs vs 100lbs equate to someone being a better or more valuable employee. Even a laborer on a construction site uses a variety of pallet jacks, dollies, forklifts, and etc to move heavy equipment. For insurance purposes alone no experienced construction site manager would want people using their physicality to get the job done.

 

You say 40yrs ago isn't today yet if we look at the overwhelming number of supervisors, managers, CEOs, and various positions of authority in industry today how many of those people were raised 40yrs ago vs today? The attititudes of the past have shaped our current workforce. Society today is better and perhaps when children raised today grow up things will be better but amongst adults living and supporting themselves and their families discrimination of generations past still have a huge impact.

[Raider5678]

How does being physically stronger than someone else make that person a better electrician, crane operator, Information Technician, plumber, welder, and etc? Most all jobs require a minimum physical ability which consists of having normal mobility, dexterity, balance, color vision, hearing, and etc but very few jobs require a maximum. In very few professions does the ability to bench press 200lbs vs 100lbs equate to someone being a better or more valuable employee. Even a laborer on a construction site uses a variety of pallet jacks, dollies, forklifts, and etc to move heavy equipment. For insurance purposes alone no experienced construction site manager would want people using their physicality to get the job done.

Learn to read. I said nothing about someone being physically stronger being better at non physical jobs. Do not straw man me. Do not take what I said out of context. Do not twist my words. Do not say I said something when I didn't. Do these, and this debate might move forward easier. Here's what I said:

 

"Now if your on a job the requires a lot of physical strength, are you more likely to hire women or men? Which group is more likely to fit the bill? Based off of a national average, I think if its a physical job, employers get a little slack there, ok?"

 

THAT, is what I said.

 

As for most jobs, I already addressed that, and it had nothing to do with physical strength. Here's what I said.

 

"As for electricians, structural engineers, and etc, its usually based off of if they have a degree the in the field. And as you said before, in past generations women were not encouraged, even discouraged, at going into a field like that."

 

Now where, may I ask you, did I even remotely mention physical strength. Stop straw manning me, or I swear, I will simply ignore you.

I admitted to your point that years ago women were not encouraged to join fields like that. If fewer women have degrees in that field, is there any wonder there are fewer women working in that field? Please, read what I said, at least once, before posting.

 

Things are changing now, we can't change what happened in the past.

[Delta1212]

The problem is that this is an ideal that is still not actually realized. It certainly looked like it was when I was in school.

 

Then I graduated and got a couple of jobs and made friends with women who have careers and the environment is absolutely not the same as it was when I was in school. It certainly isn't nearly as bad as it used to be in most places, and it varies from company to company.

 

Some companies are better balanced than others, but even within the best companies there is an external imbalance, because men generally have better options available to them by virtue of other companies existing where that balance doesn't exist.

 

The job market and career experience for men and women is simply not the same. The fact that the prevailing opinion has shifted toward equal opportunities for everyone as the "correct" state of being and that most people and our school systems usually try to instill this value in our students is a good thing, but don't mistake this for everything now actually being equal.

 

It isn't. And it's hard to imagine that anyone who has spent more than a couple of years in the work force wouldn't be able to see the difference in treatment that does still exist.

[Raider5678]

The problem is that this is an ideal that is still not actually realized. It certainly looked like it was when I was in school.

 

Then I graduated and got a couple of jobs and made friends with women who have careers and the environment is absolutely not the same as it was when I was in school. It certainly isn't nearly as bad as it used to be in most places, and it varies from company to company.

 

Some companies are better balanced than others, but even within the best companies there is an external imbalance, because men generally have better options available to them by virtue of other companies existing where that balance doesn't exist.

 

The job market and career experience for men and women is simply not the same. The fact that the prevailing opinion has shifted toward equal opportunities for everyone as the "correct" state of being and that most people and our school systems usually try to instill this value in our students is a good thing, but don't mistake this for everything now actually being equal.

 

It isn't. And it's hard to imagine that anyone who has spent more than a couple of years in the work force wouldn't be able to see the difference in treatment that does still exist.

Which is a good point. But in 40 years, when the current generation is the new workforce, will there still be unequal opportunities? Besides the obvious it will never be 100% equal, will it be for the most part, better? Because if so, then the problem is mostly solved but the solution is simply taking its good old time.

[johnmusic]

I blame sports and religion to a large degree. That may sound crazy to you hard core sport fans but the more competitive a human is the more he is likely to result to violence. And thinking your country you live in is somehow better than another is not good. All of the we are better than you attitude needs to end.

[Raider5678]

I blame sports and religion to a large degree. That may sound crazy to you hard core sport fans but the more competitive a human is the more he is likely to result to violence. And thinking your country you live in is somehow better than another is not good. All of the we are better than you attitude needs to end.

That's debatable.

[Delta1212]

Which is a good point. But in 40 years, when the current generation is the new workforce, will there still be unequal opportunities? Besides the obvious it will never be 100% equal, will it be for the most part, better? Because if so, then the problem is mostly solved but the solution is simply taking its good old time.

It may be solved in the future, but it is not now. There is a tendency to assume forward progress as a natural and somewhat inevitable process.

 

But it isn't. It takes effort to push the boulder up the hill. Getting lax and saying "Well, the boulder has been going uphill since I've been alive and has been for years and even decades before that. At its current pace, it'll reach the top of the hill by the time I'm an adult, so I don't understand why anyone is still bothering to push it" is a good way to let things slide backwards.

[Raider5678]

It may be solved in the future, but it is not now. There is a tendency to assume forward progress as a natural and somewhat inevitable process.

 

But it isn't. It takes effort to push the boulder up the hill. Getting lax and saying "Well, the boulder has been going uphill since I've been alive and has been for years and even decades before that. At its current pace, it'll reach the top of the hill by the time I'm an adult, so I don't understand why anyone is still bothering to push it" is a good way to let things slide backwards.

But you see, I and many people my age that I know aren't gonna do that. I've been in many fights with people about this issue, and there's a lot of kids like me. A lot of people agree. When the over whelming majority wants it a certain way, that boulder gets pushed up, and that's whats been happening my whole life. When the downward force try's to pull it down, people notice.

[Delta1212]

But you see, I and many people my age that I know aren't gonna do that. I've been in many fights with people about this issue, and there's a lot of kids like me. A lot of people agree. When the over whelming majority wants it a certain way, that boulder gets pushed up, and that's whats been happening my whole life. When the downward force try's to pull it down, people notice.

This is going to see kind of random, but humor me for a minute. What are your thoughts on smoking?

[Raider5678]

This is going to see kind of random, but humor me for a minute. What are your thoughts on smoking?

Its unhealthy. I do see where your going. They've been teaching for a long time now that smoking is wrong yet we still do it. I'm assuming that will be what you mention correct?

[Delta1212]

Its unhealthy. I do see where your going. They've been teaching for a long time now that smoking is wrong yet we still do it. I'm assuming that will be what you mention correct?

 

Something along those lines. It was easy to think in middle school "smoking is unhealthy and of course I'm never going to do it. Obviously, none of my friends are going to do it either." And I never did smoke. But by high school, I knew plenty of people with the same education I did who were smoking like chimneys between classes. Same goes for general drug use. One of my best friends in elementary school was basically an alcoholic by high school, got into other things and I'm fairly sure the last I heard of what was going on with him, he had just gotten out of jail.

 

There is a trap that it is easy to fall into that because you have a particular belief and it seems objectively correct, and because it gets espoused from positions of authority without a lot of pushback that everyone, or at least most "normal" people are operating from the same assumptions.

 

I can absolutely guarantee you that you personally know people whose opinions on certain things would surprise and/or shock you, and that includes the role of women in society. That's not a statement about where you live or the specific people you know. That's a general statement about people.

 

A lot of things you assume are baseline assumptions for any reasonable person are actually not, and this spans all generations and regions. There may be regions and age brackets where certain shared ideas cluster more than others, but pretty much none of them are universal, and you disagree about a lot more things with a lot more people that you interact with on a daily basis than you probably think you do.

[Ten oz]

But you see, I and many people my age that I know aren't gonna do that. I've been in many fights with people about this issue, and there's a lot of kids like me. A lot of people agree. When the over whelming majority wants it a certain way, that boulder gets pushed up, and that's whats been happening my whole life. When the downward force try's to pull it down, people notice.

I think you opinions would be more clearly expressed if you didn't attempt to position them as already affirmed by the feelings of others whom are not in this conversation.

 

Not letting the boulder get pulled down, progress reversed, is not equal to the boulder continue up the hill.

Learn to read. I said nothing about someone being physically stronger being better at non physical jobs. Do not straw man me. Do not take what I said out of context. Do not twist my words. Do not say I said something when I didn't. Do these, and this debate might move forward easier. Here's what I said:

 

"Now if your on a job the requires a lot of physical strength, are you more likely to hire women or men? Which group is more likely to fit the bill? Based off of a national average, I think if its a physical job, employers get a little slack there, ok?"

 

THAT, is what I said.

 

As for most jobs, I already addressed that, and it had nothing to do with physical strength. Here's what I said.

 

"As for electricians, structural engineers, and etc, its usually based off of if they have a degree the in the field. And as you said before, in past generations women were not encouraged, even discouraged, at going into a field like that."

 

Now where, may I ask you, did I even remotely mention physical strength. Stop straw manning me, or I swear, I will simply ignore you.

I admitted to your point that years ago women were not encouraged to join fields like that. If fewer women have degrees in that field, is there any wonder there are fewer women working in that field? Please, read what I said, at least once, before posting.

 

Things are changing now, we can't change what happened in the past.

We are talking about society at large? What are these jobs, ones which employ a large enough protion of our workforce to be useful to this discussion, that men are better suited for us men because we have more muscle?

Edited October 17, 2016 by Ten oz

[Raider5678]

We are talking about society at large? What are these jobs, ones which employ a large enough protion of our workforce to be useful to this discussion, that men are better suited for us men because we have more muscle?

Ok, you know what. You really need to learn to read man. This is literally so stupid. I never said they employ a large portion of the workforce. NEVER, in this entire discussion. You are attacking a tiny portion of my argument which isn't even relevant to the discussion. You spelled portion wrong. There are jobs, like I mentioned. But they don't make up the majority of the workforce. You know that, I know that, everyone here knows that, so why are you even asking? You are antagonizing this discussion just because you can, and your contributing nothing to it in your efforts. We are debating if things are changing, not how they were. We are debating if the change goes so far as to reverse, and if you can't discuss that, then just stop.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Raider5678

[Delta1212]

Ok, you know what. You really need to learn to read man. This is literally so stupid. I never said they employ a large portion of the workforce. NEVER, in this entire discussion. You are attacking a tiny portion of my argument which isn't even relevant to the discussion.

Deep breaths, Raider. One of the things I really respect about you is that you're generally pretty willing to listen to counter-arguments and to think about and accept points that refute your starting position instead of digging in in the face of contrary evidence. That's a useful trait to have and not an especially common one.

 

But it's much harder for anyone to do that when they get frustrated and start letting the argument feel personal. I understand the frustration of feeling like you are being misunderstood or your arguments are being misconstrued, but try not to let yourself get upset when that happens. That's a good way to get emotionally attached to a position, and that's not a good place to argue from.

 

Try instead to look at it as an opportunity to find a better way to express your ideas so that they are easier to understand or harder to apply improperly for someone else's argument. Don't allow yourself to get defensive and entrenched in a position.

[Raider5678]

Deep breaths, Raider. One of the things I really respect about you is that you're generally pretty willing to listen to counter-arguments and to think about and accept points that refute your starting position instead of digging in in the face of contrary evidence. That's a useful trait to have and not an especially common one.

 

But it's much harder for anyone to do that when they get frustrated and start letting the argument feel personal. I understand the frustration of feeling like you are being misunderstood or your arguments are being misconstrued, but try not to let yourself get upset when that happens. That's a good way to get emotionally attached to a position, and that's not a good place to argue from.

 

Try instead to look at it as an opportunity to find a better way to express your ideas so that they are easier to understand or harder to apply improperly for someone else's argument. Don't allow yourself to get defensive and entrenched in a position.

Fair enough.

[Ten oz]

Additionally, as for the work force, its been proven, scientifically, men grow muscle and use it more efficiently then women. This is not saying there are not strong women. This is not saying that all men are stronger then women. I'm saying on average, its easier for a man to build and use muscle then a woman. In navy seals you have to be VERY fit. PEAK fitness. And women in the army, Male dominated as you say, even let training on women go easier simply because they are women. And they are still out numbered. but as I was saying, in the navy seals they allow women to try and join, but they MUST meet the standards the men meet. And yet not one woman has passed the training.

 

 

 

1 - Oooook. This is pointless, but I'll say it again. I'm not saying all men are stronger then women. I'm not saying there are not strong women. But on a NATIONAL average, men are stronger then women. DO you disagree with this statement? You shouldn't, as its been proven. Now if your on a job the requires alot of physical strength, are you more likely to hire women or men? Which group is more likely to fit the bill? Based off of a national average, I think if its a physical job, employers get a little slack there, ok? As for electricians, structural engineers, and etc, its usually based off of if they have a the degree in the field. And as you said before, in past generations women were not encouraged, even discouraged, at going into a field like that.

 

 

Ok, you know what. You really need to learn to read man. This is literally so stupid. I never said they employ a large portion of the workforce. NEVER, in this entire discussion. You are attacking a tiny portion of my argument which isn't even relevant to the discussion. You spelled portion wrong. There are jobs, like I mentioned. But they don't make up the majority of the workforce. You know that, I know that, everyone here knows that, so why are you even asking? You are antagonizing this discussion just because you can, and your contributing nothing to it in your efforts. We are debating if things are changing, not how they were. We are debating if the change goes so far as to reverse, and if you can't discuss that, then just stop.

You have repeatedly said that as a matter of fact men have more physical strength than women. You have used that to say in some cases men better "fit the bill" for jobs. Those comments were in response to me pointing out that men still (today in 2016 and not just in decades past) dominate nurmerous industries. That women in nurmerous industries are out numbered by their male peers and as a result of that are not is any position to reserve discriminate.

 

You say I am attacking a tiny portion of what you have said but you have repeated it and it is relevant to whether or not we have gone far enough or if enough progress has been made. I have listed various male dominated industries, you have implied that it makes sense that some would be based on muscle, and no industries dominated by females have even come up. How has change gone so far as to reserve if the majority of careers are still dominated by men? I am not atagonizing you. I believe my comments are related to this discussion.

 

Also, I never said you claimed that the number of jobs men are better suited for was a large percentage of the workforce. Rather, I challanged that they weren't as a way of saying the fact that men have more muscle was insignificant. That the number is too few as to be useful, in my opinion, to the discussion.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Ten oz

[Raider5678]

 

 

 

 

1- You have repeatedly said that as a matter of fact men have more physical strength than women.

 

2- You have used that to say in some cases men better "fit the bill" for jobs.

 

3- Those comments were in response to me pointing out that men still (today in 2016 and not just in decades past) dominate nurmerous industries.

 

4- That women in nurmerous industries are out numbered by their male peers and as a result of that are not is any position to reserve discriminate.

 

5- You say I am attacking a tiny portion of what you have said but you have repeated it and it is relevant to whether or not we have gone far enough or if enough progress has been made.

 

6- I have listed various male dominated industries, you have implied that it makes sense that some would be based on muscle, and no industries dominated by females have even come up.

 

7- How has change gone so far as to reserve if the majority of careers are still dominated by men?

 

8- I am not atagonizing you. I believe my comments are related to this discussion.

 

9- Also, I never said you claimed that the number of jobs men are better suited for was a large percentage of the workforce.

 

10 - Rather, I challanged that they weren't as a way of saying the fact that men have more muscle was insignificant. That the number is too few as to be useful, in my opinion, to the discussion.

1 -I said that on average men are stronger then women. This is ALL I said. I did not say, Men are stronger then women. I said on average. This is a fact which you can't seem to swallow. Lets look at the science:

 

Women have less total muscle mass on average. In absolute terms, its an average (total mass). In muscle compared to body mass its Almost ALWAYS higher (muscle mass/body mass). The second part is the one I am focusing. If you have more muscle compared to a woman, simply because your the same size, that gives you a minor edge. This can change, with variables, as always. But if you ever wanted to build muscle, it would be much easier for you.

 

Men have denser, stronger bones. This has been proven. Repeatedly. There's no arguing it, and there's no going around it.

 

Men have stronger tendons and ligaments. This has been proven. Repeatedly. There's no arguing it, and there's no going around it.

 

These factors lead to a trend where on AVERAGE, men are stronger then women. For the last time, this is my statement:

 

Men are on AVERAGE, NOT all the time, stronger then women.

 

2- They are. Very few jobs, but there are jobs out there I.E. Navy Seals. I am not saying, in any way, that they dominate the workforce. I am using this as a minor case, that there will probably never be 100% equality in the force entirely as long as the trend of men being stronger then women continues.

 

3- I never argued this point. Men dominate almost every industry in today's society.

 

4- Once again, I never even brought this point up.

 

5- Your attacking the point where I said the on AVERAGE men are stronger then women. Your attacking fact BTW. Your also attacking that I said some jobs require a lot of physical strength. This is also a fact. I.E. Navy Seals. In NO way am I saying that they dominate the workforce.

You are attacking a tiny portion of what I said. I repeated it because you attacked it. There's a cause and effect relationship here that is not working in your favor. You can't say that its a tiny portion because I repeated it, if attacking that tiny portion was the reason I repeated it.

 

6- I do agree that it does make sense that some jobs are based on muscle, albeit VERY few.

 

6.1 - I never once said that it makes sense there are no female dominated industries. But now that you say I do, I might as well talk about it. If an industry popped up that was female dominated, then that would mean it's a sexist industry. If its sexist, and your ranting about sexism, why would you want a female dominated industry? There is no logic, only hypocrisy in that statement.

 

7- Where, did I say this. Answer this question, Please. Don't just ignore it. Tell me WHERE I said this. What I DID say was that in my generation, there is A LOT less sexism then in previous generations. This has a cause and effect that when my generation hits the workforce, there will be less sexism in the workforce. I am in no way, saying that there is no sexism in the workforce currently.

 

8- They will relate better to the discussion if you stop arguing a point nobody is arguing about. Nobody argued there is no sexism in the workforce. Nobody argued that there's no sexism at all. Nobody argued that Physical strength dominates the workforce. Nobody argued that that women do not dominate the workforce.

 

9- Alright, you Implied.

 

10- If this is insignificant, as I have already pointed out to you, why did you even bring it up, and on top of that, why again and again?

You are attacking a tiny portion of what I said. I repeated it because you attacked it. There's a cause and effect relationship here that is not working in your favor. You can't say that its a tiny portion because I repeated it, if attacking that tiny portion was the reason I repeated it.

[Ten oz]

@ Raider5678, do you agree that there are more industries dominated by men than women without any natural justification for the disparity?

[Raider5678]

@ Raider5678, do you agree that there are more industries dominated by men than women without any natural justification for the disparity?

Yes.

[Ten oz]

Yes.

Right, which means women are not broadly in a position to discriminate against men. So the reserve of sexism isn't something which is happening in the work place.

 

I am not accussing you of having said it was. That is my answer/response to your question, "We are debating if things are changing, not how they were. We are debating if the change goes so far as to reverse". Men still hold a dominate position is more industries without any natural justification. So in my opinion things have clearly not changed so far as to reverse. Things still need to change to resolve the disparities we still have.

[Raider5678]

Right, which means women are not broadly in a position to discriminate against men. So the reserve of sexism isn't something which is happening in the work place.

 

I am not accussing you of having said it was. That is my answer/response to your question, "We are debating if things are changing, not how they were. We are debating if the change goes so far as to reverse". Men still hold a dominate position is more industries without any natural justification. So in my opinion things have clearly not changed so far as to reverse. Things still need to change to resolve the disparities we still have.

But just because men are in a position to discriminate, does that mean automatically that they do? Men dominate the workplace, but the issue that brought this up was if people are labeled and stereotyped whether they are a man or a woman. Just because women aren't encouraged to work, the same can be said about men, that they are encouraged to work. 50 years ago almost every man was working or looking for a job.

[Ten oz]

But just because men are in a position to discriminate, does that mean automatically that they do? Men dominate the workplace, but the issue that brought this up was if people are labeled and stereotyped whether they are a man or a woman. Just because women aren't encouraged to work, the same can be said about men, that they are encouraged to work. 50 years ago almost every man was working or looking for a job.

I didn't say just because men can discriminate they do. Rather what I was was that because women tend to not be in a position to discriminate they probably don't. Also there are still disparities that need to be addresed so we (society) hasn't gone too far. We haven't gone far enough.

[CharonY]

No, but if, say only a percentage of any given workforce engages in discriminatory practices, then obviously the dominating group will do more discrimination. A big issue is also that discrimination is usually subtle and to a degree unconscious, which makes things worse. If you engage e.g. exclusively with male engineers and a female comes a long, your perception is likely to be different. As you are used to males, any new male would have to have some distinguishing figures to stick out and you would need some interaction to gauge them (say, "Dave is a bit louder than Mike but despite being annoying he has goo ideas."). However if a female or any other minority comes along the fact that they stick out is likely to influence interaction with and evaluation of the person (i.e. the being loud may now be attributed to a given stereotypical group rather than the attribute of an individual). This may even be true if one is a member of minority group.

As such, it is usually majority groups that shape the form of stereotyping in a given environment.

 

The issue at play is that we are ultimately crap in objectively evaluating other people. We utilize personal experience as a guideline and in cases where we lack those, we often use stereotypes or limited experiences to fill the gaps.

 

Edit, crossposted.

Edited October 17, 2016 by CharonY

[Delta1212]

The point here to consider is that men are, by and large, the only ones in a position to discriminate. The places where women have the power to do so are much fewer and and generally less critical to anyone's personal well-being or ability to get ahead in life.

 

That's not to say that every man in a position to do so automatically discriminated against women. But some of them do. And because women don't have the power to respond in kind on a similar widespread/institutional level, the discrimination can't have reversed.

 

There may be less discrimination now than there was in the past, but the net effect is still pointing strongly in the direction of harming women far more than it harms men. We're nowhere near a reversal existing on a societal level.

 

The main reason that I don't find this argument convincing as far as "well, maybe it's not happening now but that's the direction we're heading in" is that we're trying to reach destination X where there is no discrimination (or, more realistically, because people are assholes, nobody is disproportionately affected by discrimination because of things they can't control). On the side of X that we're on right now, men have an advantage. On the opposite side of X, women have an advantage and men are disadvantaged.

 

Most of the arguments for "reverse" discrimination (and this applies to arguments for all sorts not just gender) mostly amount to "We're heading towards the opposite side of X and we're getting mighty close to it. This is the closest that society has ever been to X. Maybe it would be better if we just stopped where we are now instead of risking going past X and winding up in a bad place on the other side."

 

The problem, of course, is that the only fair place to be as a society is dead on X. To say that we're close enough now and don't need to actually get there is to tell other people "Sorry, my fear of the possibility that I might be put at a disadvantage outweighs the fact that you currently are actually at a disadvantage, so it isn't worth it to me to try to push society any closer to an ideal state of fairness."