3 ms·

What will the enforcement policy be? I can easily identify several contradictions in the guideline, in particularly the concept of no exceptions. Regardless o

by belorn 6y ago

What will the enforcement policy be? I can easily identify several contradictions in the guideline, in particularly the concept of no exceptions. Regardless of my own personal opinion about the practice, there is a reason why the law against discrimination here in Sweden has a explicit exception that state that discrimination is not allowed unless it is for the purpose of reducing discrimination against marginalized groups. It also seems to the favored method of choice since the 1980s. For conferences, for which this document seems partially focused on, it has always been clear that respecting disabilities follows cultural norms. If cultural we see the disability as inconvenient, a problem which the disabled individual should be ashamed of, and trait of low social status, then people rarely care about it.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> unless it is for the purpose of reducing discrimination against marginalized groups Everyone invested in identity politics considers the group he most identifies with as marginalized, and he can always cherry pick the appropriate statistics to show it, as every group indeed is marginalized depending on what one chooses to investigate and consider, and who is to decide what matters more? The Jew will cite historical events, and conveniently ignore capital possessions; the male will cite workplace deaths, and conveniently ignore political holding; the female will cite income inæqualiy, and conveniently ignore criminal sentencing; the child will cite lack of suffrage, and conveniently ignore lack of criminal culpability before the law, — and so forth, and so forth. Whom the courts agree with does not seem to be based on evidence but simply subjective opinions.
- belorn 6y ago
  The enforcement has been rather inconsistent (in my view, from my perspective), and is one reason why I am not that happy about it. You can have a women only meetup in a conference, but a women only music festival is forbidden. You can have gender discriminating prices at a hair stylist, but not at a restaurant. You can have single gender university programs for a minority demographic, but you can not give additional points during the application phase to a minority demographic. I can not think of an explanation for any of these.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Ah yes, the hair salon prices. I remember well when I was walking past one with a friend and noticed that they charged differently based on gender and I was very confused as to how this is legal, with sad friend being rather confused that I did not know how common it was. I even went inside to ask, and they said that it was because of hair length, I then inquired whether a female with shorter hair would be given the male treatment and vice versā, but that was apparently not the case either. I then went home to look it up and apparently no one can explain it. All the lawyers on the matter say that it is flat out illegal by the letter of the law, but they do it, and they aren't prosecuted for illegal price discrimination. — no one understands why this can continue to go on. As I said in another comment, rule of law has never existed, and every law ever written has been selectively enforced.
    - belorn 6y ago
      It also illustrate that making the law against discrimination less complex would benefit everyone, just at different situations. An other weird situation that laws is causing is the gendered opening hours for public bath houses operated by the state. Politically there is an interest for having a women only day. In order to make it more equal there is also a men only day. If you ask the personal, days with mixed gender is more popular in terms of number of visitors, calmer and with less trouble. Polls also showed that visitors were happier with the visit during mixed gender days than during gendered day. It is also cheaper to operate for the government. The courts looked at the issue and decided that it was however consistent with the exception, and the decision at the end was up to the politicians to make. The outcome is that single sex days exist at most public bathhouses.
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        I assume the single sex days exist for the minority that do find it more comfortable. Averages are only averages; no doubt there exist many that præfer the single-sex days as well. But it also shows another matter: I would think that the politicians would not be so accepting of single-race days, even if polls found that a just as significant number was more comfortable with them, as it is somehow in many cultures more acceptable to segregate by sex than it is by race. They would also be hesitants that have days that segregate on intelligence quotient, or income level, regardless of whether the polls show a desire for it. As far as I know, public bathhouses and saunas do not have single sex days and are all mixed bathing where I live, and in Anglo-Saxon countries, they tend to be completely segregated all the time, and of course in Saudi-Arabia, most famously entire parks and sports events are sex-segregated. I have read some anecdotal experiences of Anglo-Saxons in continental European mixed public baths, and how much of a culture shock it was for them. Yet, the verdict almost unanimously seems to be that however weird it be at first, the third time already it seems completely normal, and all the fears were unfounded and people really do not stare.

by belorn 6y ago

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

> unless it is for the purpose of reducing discrimination against marginalized groups Everyone invested in identity politics considers the group he most identifies with as marginalized, and he can always cherry pick the appropriate statistics to show it, as every group indeed is marginalized depending on what one chooses to investigate and consider, and who is to decide what matters more? The Jew will cite historical events, and conveniently ignore capital possessions; the male will cite workplace deaths, and conveniently ignore political holding; the female will cite income inæqualiy, and conveniently ignore criminal sentencing; the child will cite lack of suffrage, and conveniently ignore lack of criminal culpability before the law, — and so forth, and so forth. Whom the courts agree with does not seem to be based on evidence but simply subjective opinions.

belorn 6y ago
The enforcement has been rather inconsistent (in my view, from my perspective), and is one reason why I am not that happy about it. You can have a women only meetup in a conference, but a women only music festival is forbidden. You can have gender discriminating prices at a hair stylist, but not at a restaurant. You can have single gender university programs for a minority demographic, but you can not give additional points during the application phase to a minority demographic. I can not think of an explanation for any of these.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Ah yes, the hair salon prices. I remember well when I was walking past one with a friend and noticed that they charged differently based on gender and I was very confused as to how this is legal, with sad friend being rather confused that I did not know how common it was. I even went inside to ask, and they said that it was because of hair length, I then inquired whether a female with shorter hair would be given the male treatment and vice versā, but that was apparently not the case either. I then went home to look it up and apparently no one can explain it. All the lawyers on the matter say that it is flat out illegal by the letter of the law, but they do it, and they aren't prosecuted for illegal price discrimination. — no one understands why this can continue to go on. As I said in another comment, rule of law has never existed, and every law ever written has been selectively enforced.
  - belorn 6y ago
    It also illustrate that making the law against discrimination less complex would benefit everyone, just at different situations. An other weird situation that laws is causing is the gendered opening hours for public bath houses operated by the state. Politically there is an interest for having a women only day. In order to make it more equal there is also a men only day. If you ask the personal, days with mixed gender is more popular in terms of number of visitors, calmer and with less trouble. Polls also showed that visitors were happier with the visit during mixed gender days than during gendered day. It is also cheaper to operate for the government. The courts looked at the issue and decided that it was however consistent with the exception, and the decision at the end was up to the politicians to make. The outcome is that single sex days exist at most public bathhouses.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      I assume the single sex days exist for the minority that do find it more comfortable. Averages are only averages; no doubt there exist many that præfer the single-sex days as well. But it also shows another matter: I would think that the politicians would not be so accepting of single-race days, even if polls found that a just as significant number was more comfortable with them, as it is somehow in many cultures more acceptable to segregate by sex than it is by race. They would also be hesitants that have days that segregate on intelligence quotient, or income level, regardless of whether the polls show a desire for it. As far as I know, public bathhouses and saunas do not have single sex days and are all mixed bathing where I live, and in Anglo-Saxon countries, they tend to be completely segregated all the time, and of course in Saudi-Arabia, most famously entire parks and sports events are sex-segregated. I have read some anecdotal experiences of Anglo-Saxons in continental European mixed public baths, and how much of a culture shock it was for them. Yet, the verdict almost unanimously seems to be that however weird it be at first, the third time already it seems completely normal, and all the fears were unfounded and people really do not stare.