4 ms·

No it means I don't believe in curing sexism with sexism and yes I am accusing the organization of being sexist because it is.

geofft 9y ago
> No it means I don't believe in curing sexism with sexism Is this an ideological position, or a belief about effectiveness? That is, do you believe that it's fundamentally wrong to take sex-biased actions to fix sexism, or just inefficient? Suppose a city has ten homeless shelters for men and one for women, all built in the early 20th century. Is it legitimate to fund the construction of nine homeless shelters for women without funding more for men? Why/why not?
- staticelf 9y ago
  I believe it's unethical and deeply hypocitical. Also, I don't believe it's effectiveness. So both I assume. If there was such a scenario in which you describe, the correct act would enable all shelters to accept both genders. If there is no reason to exclude someone, it's better to be inclusive otherwise you will not get an equal society. This is my belief. In reality, there is never an equal amount of anything so by being inclusive we have eliminated any opportunity of being unequal. Let me give you another scenario to illustrate my point. Think about women in IT, surely there are less women in IT. We could potentially boost the stastistic by offering women all educational costs covered by the government (an actual suggestion in my country). Sure, it may work but in the same time, who is to say when it's finished and now we don't need it anymore? When it's exactly 50/50 or when there is more women in field? Also, what about every other field where it's not equal? What about all men that don't get covered and have to pay for their expenses themselves? What do they think about this and how will their view on the subject be in the future? But the biggest question of all that is always unanswered is why should the gender decide who gets a great economical benefit? I asked a lot of questions but my belief is that those people negatively affected by this would feel a deep injustice and would want to fight it at any level. I think they would take some of that blaim on the women that got their expenses paid and perhaps even try to punish the society in some way (like tax avoidence). It may be irrational, but I am pretty sure that is the exact way me myself and others would react. I think by using sexism to fight sexism, you will only introduce more sexism and potentially other problems that is totally unintended (like Donald Trump).

geofft 9y ago

> No it means I don't believe in curing sexism with sexism Is this an ideological position, or a belief about effectiveness? That is, do you believe that it's fundamentally wrong to take sex-biased actions to fix sexism, or just inefficient? Suppose a city has ten homeless shelters for men and one for women, all built in the early 20th century. Is it legitimate to fund the construction of nine homeless shelters for women without funding more for men? Why/why not?

staticelf 9y ago
I believe it's unethical and deeply hypocitical. Also, I don't believe it's effectiveness. So both I assume. If there was such a scenario in which you describe, the correct act would enable all shelters to accept both genders. If there is no reason to exclude someone, it's better to be inclusive otherwise you will not get an equal society. This is my belief. In reality, there is never an equal amount of anything so by being inclusive we have eliminated any opportunity of being unequal. Let me give you another scenario to illustrate my point. Think about women in IT, surely there are less women in IT. We could potentially boost the stastistic by offering women all educational costs covered by the government (an actual suggestion in my country). Sure, it may work but in the same time, who is to say when it's finished and now we don't need it anymore? When it's exactly 50/50 or when there is more women in field? Also, what about every other field where it's not equal? What about all men that don't get covered and have to pay for their expenses themselves? What do they think about this and how will their view on the subject be in the future? But the biggest question of all that is always unanswered is why should the gender decide who gets a great economical benefit? I asked a lot of questions but my belief is that those people negatively affected by this would feel a deep injustice and would want to fight it at any level. I think they would take some of that blaim on the women that got their expenses paid and perhaps even try to punish the society in some way (like tax avoidence). It may be irrational, but I am pretty sure that is the exact way me myself and others would react. I think by using sexism to fight sexism, you will only introduce more sexism and potentially other problems that is totally unintended (like Donald Trump).