4 ms·

Being anti-rascist or anti-sexist does not necessarily imply being is anti-discrimination. To give an example, in many places positively discriminate old people

Being anti-rascist or anti-sexist does not necessarily imply being is anti-discrimination. To give an example, in many places positively discriminate old people by offering lower prices or better seating. Yet it would be absurd to claim that this constitutes ageism towards young people. It is understood that being old is in many ways a handicap, and by discriminating positively, we seek to lessen that handicap.

jbmorgado 11y ago
Your argument implies that women have an handicap and they can't direct movies as well as men and as such need positive discrimination. You are not supposed to force just women, just men, or just any other person from some sub-group into being included in some achievement that you want to atribute to the best overall individuals. I believe that is very clearly not the message of feminism and if it is, then feminism would be clearly broken.
- RodericDay 11y ago
  The "handicap" in this case is the momentum carried by decades of forced subjugation, which can still be seen in tons of our social and cultural norms. Nothing to do with intrinsic potential.
  - jules 11y ago
    I'm not sure if that was serious, but women dominate in plenty of subjects. When are we going to accept that on average women are not interested in the same things as men? Trying to make everything 50-50 only makes people miserable. Give people equal opportunity, and if they make different choices that is a good thing, because they're choosing what makes them happy.
    - adamlett 11y ago
      Yeah, it's just that the subjects women tend to dominate pay less than the subjects men tend to dominate. Go figure. By the way, read this http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/b... and tell me again that women are not handicapped simply by being women. Or maybe women on average simply do not make an effort to succeed unless they can somehow hide that they are women?
      - jules 11y ago
        I'm all for blind auditions and eliminating discrimination. The problem is that the criterion for success cannot be a 50-50 split between men and women in every profession. That ignores that there are gender differences, and pushing for that goes against personal freedom and well being. The market sets wages of jobs based on the value that they produce. A petroleum engineer earns more than a sociologist. This is not due to discrimination, it's due to market value of the degree. That women choose the lower paying degrees is a mark of a society where women can choose what they really want. If you look at countries like Iran and Pakistan you see more women in engineering than in Sweden and the Netherlands. Arguing that this is because of discrimination is ridiculous. It is out of economic necessity. The more wealthy and equal a society becomes, the more women choose professions they like and men choose professions they like. The criterion for succes should not be equal representation, but equal opportunity. The problem is that you have a fact-free branch of feminism that has completely taken over the political discourse. We need to listen to feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers who care about science and about the actual well being of women, instead of an ideological narrative.
        adamlett 11y ago
        I'm all for blind auditions and eliminating discrimination. Good for you, but that wasn't really the point of that example. The point was that there is no good reason to assume that the same dynamic that caused women to loose auditions before blind auditions, doesn't apply in all kinds of other fields. How do you propose we deal with in occupations where we can't have the equivalent of blind auditions? The problem is that the criterion for success cannot be a 50-50 split between men and women in every profession. That's a red herring. No one here is arguing for that. Even Spike Lee only added a handful of women to his list of 80 directors. That ignores that there are gender differences, and pushing for that goes against personal freedom and well being. The problem with that argument is that it could have been made at any point during the last 200 years to argue that we had at that particular point in time reached the pinnacle of gender equality. In fact I'm certain that it has been used both for arguing against voting rights for women and against women working at all.
- adamlett 11y ago
  My argument was merely that it is not unreasonable to be in favour of positive discrimination if you believe that this evens out some handicap. And if you don't think that merely being woman it is a handicap, I would ask you to ponder what caused women to suddenly begin winning auditions for symphony orchestras when blind auditions were instituted? (http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/b...) That said, I don't think I stated that it was my personal opinion that positive discrimination was the best way to solve this problem. I don't think I would rule it out in all cases, but I much prefer a solution like the blind auditions. But obviously this is not a universal solution.
  - jbmorgado 11y ago
    Not when that discrimination is not to create equal opportunities but to forcible attribute achievements to a specific sub-group claiming that they earned those achievements in direct competition will the all group. For instance, using your example, you could and should create the conditions for old people to feel less difficulty in accessing certain areas, but it would be ridiculous to put old people running against the 100m last olympic champion and then in the end by some argument claim some old person did the same time as the former champion and declare them both champions. This is the point.
    - adamlett 11y ago
      to forcible attribute achievements to a specific sub-group claiming that they earned those achievements in direct competition will the all group As the example with the symphony orchestras showed, it is entirely possible that the achievements of women get discounted simply because they are women. I'm not saying that it is necessarily always the case, but since it demonstrably is in some cases, you should at least concede that it is an entirely reasonable position to have that women should be discriminated positively against to balance this bias, even if you don't share the position.
pbhjpbhj 11y ago
>Yet it would be absurd to claim that this constitutes ageism towards young people. // Can you walk me through this? A pensioner is a millionaire, say, and gets a free bus pass (OAPs in the UK are entitle to a travel pass regardless of their financial position). A school child wants to get to school but can't afford the bus so has to walk 2.9 miles each way to school. How is it not ageism that based only on age the pensioner gets a bus pass and the child doesn't? You can argue that the ageism is justified as the general principle is sound (for example) but it's still ageism - discrimination based solely on the age of the subjects. The child could be disabled, they still wouldn't necessarily qualify for a bus pass.
- cruise02 11y ago
  That's not discrimination against young people because it's not saying that young people aren't allowed to ride the bus, just that they have to pay the regular price. (Also, most children in the U.S. are bused to school for free. Is that not the way it is in the UK?)
  - Retric 11y ago
    So, it's OK if normal seating is at the back of the buss, but white only premium seating is at the front?
    - cruise02 11y ago
      If you have to make this kind of leap to support your argument, you don't have an argument.
      - Retric 11y ago
        What leap? You said normal vs premium was perfectly acceptable? Premium aircraft seating was at the front of the aircraft... How about if we call the back of the bus the 'premium area' and exclude whites? PS: If you don't defend your argument, I am going to assume you already conceded defeat.
  - 11y ago

jbmorgado 11y ago

Your argument implies that women have an handicap and they can't direct movies as well as men and as such need positive discrimination. You are not supposed to force just women, just men, or just any other person from some sub-group into being included in some achievement that you want to atribute to the best overall individuals. I believe that is very clearly not the message of feminism and if it is, then feminism would be clearly broken.

RodericDay 11y ago
The "handicap" in this case is the momentum carried by decades of forced subjugation, which can still be seen in tons of our social and cultural norms. Nothing to do with intrinsic potential.
- jules 11y ago
  I'm not sure if that was serious, but women dominate in plenty of subjects. When are we going to accept that on average women are not interested in the same things as men? Trying to make everything 50-50 only makes people miserable. Give people equal opportunity, and if they make different choices that is a good thing, because they're choosing what makes them happy.
  - adamlett 11y ago
    Yeah, it's just that the subjects women tend to dominate pay less than the subjects men tend to dominate. Go figure. By the way, read this http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/b... and tell me again that women are not handicapped simply by being women. Or maybe women on average simply do not make an effort to succeed unless they can somehow hide that they are women?
    - jules 11y ago
      I'm all for blind auditions and eliminating discrimination. The problem is that the criterion for success cannot be a 50-50 split between men and women in every profession. That ignores that there are gender differences, and pushing for that goes against personal freedom and well being. The market sets wages of jobs based on the value that they produce. A petroleum engineer earns more than a sociologist. This is not due to discrimination, it's due to market value of the degree. That women choose the lower paying degrees is a mark of a society where women can choose what they really want. If you look at countries like Iran and Pakistan you see more women in engineering than in Sweden and the Netherlands. Arguing that this is because of discrimination is ridiculous. It is out of economic necessity. The more wealthy and equal a society becomes, the more women choose professions they like and men choose professions they like. The criterion for succes should not be equal representation, but equal opportunity. The problem is that you have a fact-free branch of feminism that has completely taken over the political discourse. We need to listen to feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers who care about science and about the actual well being of women, instead of an ideological narrative.
      - adamlett 11y ago
        I'm all for blind auditions and eliminating discrimination. Good for you, but that wasn't really the point of that example. The point was that there is no good reason to assume that the same dynamic that caused women to loose auditions before blind auditions, doesn't apply in all kinds of other fields. How do you propose we deal with in occupations where we can't have the equivalent of blind auditions? The problem is that the criterion for success cannot be a 50-50 split between men and women in every profession. That's a red herring. No one here is arguing for that. Even Spike Lee only added a handful of women to his list of 80 directors. That ignores that there are gender differences, and pushing for that goes against personal freedom and well being. The problem with that argument is that it could have been made at any point during the last 200 years to argue that we had at that particular point in time reached the pinnacle of gender equality. In fact I'm certain that it has been used both for arguing against voting rights for women and against women working at all.
adamlett 11y ago
My argument was merely that it is not unreasonable to be in favour of positive discrimination if you believe that this evens out some handicap. And if you don't think that merely being woman it is a handicap, I would ask you to ponder what caused women to suddenly begin winning auditions for symphony orchestras when blind auditions were instituted? (http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/blind-auditions-orchestras-gender-bias http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/oct/14/b...) That said, I don't think I stated that it was my personal opinion that positive discrimination was the best way to solve this problem. I don't think I would rule it out in all cases, but I much prefer a solution like the blind auditions. But obviously this is not a universal solution.
- jbmorgado 11y ago
  Not when that discrimination is not to create equal opportunities but to forcible attribute achievements to a specific sub-group claiming that they earned those achievements in direct competition will the all group. For instance, using your example, you could and should create the conditions for old people to feel less difficulty in accessing certain areas, but it would be ridiculous to put old people running against the 100m last olympic champion and then in the end by some argument claim some old person did the same time as the former champion and declare them both champions. This is the point.
  - adamlett 11y ago
    to forcible attribute achievements to a specific sub-group claiming that they earned those achievements in direct competition will the all group As the example with the symphony orchestras showed, it is entirely possible that the achievements of women get discounted simply because they are women. I'm not saying that it is necessarily always the case, but since it demonstrably is in some cases, you should at least concede that it is an entirely reasonable position to have that women should be discriminated positively against to balance this bias, even if you don't share the position.

pbhjpbhj 11y ago

>Yet it would be absurd to claim that this constitutes ageism towards young people. // Can you walk me through this? A pensioner is a millionaire, say, and gets a free bus pass (OAPs in the UK are entitle to a travel pass regardless of their financial position). A school child wants to get to school but can't afford the bus so has to walk 2.9 miles each way to school. How is it not ageism that based only on age the pensioner gets a bus pass and the child doesn't? You can argue that the ageism is justified as the general principle is sound (for example) but it's still ageism - discrimination based solely on the age of the subjects. The child could be disabled, they still wouldn't necessarily qualify for a bus pass.

cruise02 11y ago
That's not discrimination against young people because it's not saying that young people aren't allowed to ride the bus, just that they have to pay the regular price. (Also, most children in the U.S. are bused to school for free. Is that not the way it is in the UK?)
- Retric 11y ago
  So, it's OK if normal seating is at the back of the buss, but white only premium seating is at the front?
  - cruise02 11y ago
    If you have to make this kind of leap to support your argument, you don't have an argument.
    - Retric 11y ago
      What leap? You said normal vs premium was perfectly acceptable? Premium aircraft seating was at the front of the aircraft... How about if we call the back of the bus the 'premium area' and exclude whites? PS: If you don't defend your argument, I am going to assume you already conceded defeat.
- 11y ago