3 ms·

Are you suggesting that we cannot debate this issue unless we are female? Because, if so, then you need to copy and paste your comment on 90% of the comments in

by jimzvz 14y ago

Are you suggesting that we cannot debate this issue unless we are female? Because, if so, then you need to copy and paste your comment on 90% of the comments in this thread including your own. (I assume you are not a women because you said "Can WE please let the women speak for themselves?") Or are you suggesting that us males are only not allowed to debate when we believe that special treatment of women is actually detrimental to them and everyone else?

hackinthebochs 14y ago
I am suggesting we not make self-serving assertions about how women should feel. There is debating and then there is putting words in other people's mouths that are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. If women themselves are not making this type of argument, men have no place in making it on their behalf.
- LockeWatts 14y ago
  How about we argue instead that discriminating is wrong, and we shouldn't actively promote it.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    Racism, sexism, etc are necessarily wrong. However, discrimination is not necessarily wrong. Whether its wrong depends on the context and the motivations. I submit that this is a valid form of "discrimination".
    - jimzvz 14y ago
      Sexism is discrimination based on sex. Please look up the definition of sexism. No, it does not depend on the motivation or context, everyone who discriminates believes that their motives justify it but they don't. Your sexism is no different from anyone else's.
      - hackinthebochs 14y ago
        Sure, under the most simplistic definition devoid of any cultural context or connotation. But if you have to prune all meaning from the word to prove your point then perhaps your point is rather weak to begin with. To put it another way: if your definition of sexism means that women-centric events designed to foster interest in an otherwise underrepresented field is considered sexist, then its your definition that is faulty. Here's a definition that doesn't strip the salient context from it (dictionary.com) 1.attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. 2.discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women. It's amazing how these discussions always devolve into cherry-picking definitions and parsing language like a machine to prove respective points. If you have to resort to that, then just bow out gracefully as you are missing the point of the discussion altogether.
    - LockeWatts 14y ago
      First, nothing is necessarily wrong, as that would imply an absolute rather than relative morality. All morality is relativistic. Secondly, I would argue that your list, from my point of view, denoted 'racism, sexism, etc' is more rigorously defined as 'discriminating based on anything other than merit'. Given that assumption, discrimination by race or sex for any reason would be wrong. With those premises, I stand by my original conclusion that discrimination on the whole is wrong.
      - hackinthebochs 14y ago
        And I would have to reject those premises.
        LockeWatts 14y ago
        On what basis?
        hackinthebochs 14y ago
        >I would argue that your list, from my point of view, denoted 'racism, sexism, etc' is more rigorously defined as 'discriminating based on anything other than merit'. My comment nextdoor describes my problem with these sorts of degenerate defintions: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5350842 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5350842
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
    - MrScruff 14y ago
      Whether its wrong depends on the context and the motivations. To put it another way, the ends justifies the means. And I think you'll find plenty who would disagree with that statement.
      - hackinthebochs 14y ago
        "Ends justifies the means" is not analogous to this situation.
        MrScruff 14y ago
        Could you elaborate?
- jimzvz 14y ago
  Please explain to me where I made an assertion about how women should feel. I said that girls will wonder why they are being treated differently and I said that people do not like being segregated. What words am I putting in whose mouths? What type of argument?
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    Let's not devolve this discussion into a language-parsing exercise. Take your comment as a whole, its clear you are saying "this is how women will/should feel". I'm saying there is no reason to suppose how women will feel: they can tell us themselves if they feel this way.
    - jimzvz 14y ago
      No, I am saying that people don't like being segregated (not that they should not like, do not try to put a different spin on it) and as a person who has interacted with other people my whole life I do have a right to say that. Yes, women are people so I believe this includes women. Maybe there are people that like being singled out based on their gender in this context but I have definitely not met any. >they can tell us themselves if they feel this way Yes and they do. I am not sure if you realise this but this actually what the female author of the article says: "I also have grave concerns regarding activities and events that are for “girls only”. These events instead enforce the stereotype, segregating girls and giving them (and everyone) a message that they are different. It is a band-aid attempt at a solution to a problem that starts at a much younger age, and seriously neglects those girls (and women) who don’t want to be segregated (many of whom never even come out to such events, and whose voices are sadly never heard). Children do not grow up into a segregated world, so why are we reinforcing that message? Why are we not just creating a variety of activities that may appeal to boys or girls or both? I can see taking issue with creating explicitly sexist activities, but there is nothing inherently sexist about having activities that may attract more of one gender than the other, especially when we make the available to everyone. "
      - hackinthebochs 14y ago

by jimzvz 14y ago

hackinthebochs 14y ago

I am suggesting we not make self-serving assertions about how women should feel. There is debating and then there is putting words in other people's mouths that are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. If women themselves are not making this type of argument, men have no place in making it on their behalf.

LockeWatts 14y ago
How about we argue instead that discriminating is wrong, and we shouldn't actively promote it.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Racism, sexism, etc are necessarily wrong. However, discrimination is not necessarily wrong. Whether its wrong depends on the context and the motivations. I submit that this is a valid form of "discrimination".
  - jimzvz 14y ago
    Sexism is discrimination based on sex. Please look up the definition of sexism. No, it does not depend on the motivation or context, everyone who discriminates believes that their motives justify it but they don't. Your sexism is no different from anyone else's.
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      Sure, under the most simplistic definition devoid of any cultural context or connotation. But if you have to prune all meaning from the word to prove your point then perhaps your point is rather weak to begin with. To put it another way: if your definition of sexism means that women-centric events designed to foster interest in an otherwise underrepresented field is considered sexist, then its your definition that is faulty. Here's a definition that doesn't strip the salient context from it (dictionary.com) 1.attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. 2.discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; especially, such discrimination directed against women. It's amazing how these discussions always devolve into cherry-picking definitions and parsing language like a machine to prove respective points. If you have to resort to that, then just bow out gracefully as you are missing the point of the discussion altogether.
  - LockeWatts 14y ago
    First, nothing is necessarily wrong, as that would imply an absolute rather than relative morality. All morality is relativistic. Secondly, I would argue that your list, from my point of view, denoted 'racism, sexism, etc' is more rigorously defined as 'discriminating based on anything other than merit'. Given that assumption, discrimination by race or sex for any reason would be wrong. With those premises, I stand by my original conclusion that discrimination on the whole is wrong.
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      And I would have to reject those premises.
      - LockeWatts 14y ago
        On what basis?
        hackinthebochs 14y ago
        >I would argue that your list, from my point of view, denoted 'racism, sexism, etc' is more rigorously defined as 'discriminating based on anything other than merit'. My comment nextdoor describes my problem with these sorts of degenerate defintions: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5350842 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5350842
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - MrScruff 14y ago
    Whether its wrong depends on the context and the motivations. To put it another way, the ends justifies the means. And I think you'll find plenty who would disagree with that statement.
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      "Ends justifies the means" is not analogous to this situation.
      - MrScruff 14y ago
        Could you elaborate?
jimzvz 14y ago
Please explain to me where I made an assertion about how women should feel. I said that girls will wonder why they are being treated differently and I said that people do not like being segregated. What words am I putting in whose mouths? What type of argument?
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Let's not devolve this discussion into a language-parsing exercise. Take your comment as a whole, its clear you are saying "this is how women will/should feel". I'm saying there is no reason to suppose how women will feel: they can tell us themselves if they feel this way.
  - jimzvz 14y ago
    No, I am saying that people don't like being segregated (not that they should not like, do not try to put a different spin on it) and as a person who has interacted with other people my whole life I do have a right to say that. Yes, women are people so I believe this includes women. Maybe there are people that like being singled out based on their gender in this context but I have definitely not met any. >they can tell us themselves if they feel this way Yes and they do. I am not sure if you realise this but this actually what the female author of the article says: "I also have grave concerns regarding activities and events that are for “girls only”. These events instead enforce the stereotype, segregating girls and giving them (and everyone) a message that they are different. It is a band-aid attempt at a solution to a problem that starts at a much younger age, and seriously neglects those girls (and women) who don’t want to be segregated (many of whom never even come out to such events, and whose voices are sadly never heard). Children do not grow up into a segregated world, so why are we reinforcing that message? Why are we not just creating a variety of activities that may appeal to boys or girls or both? I can see taking issue with creating explicitly sexist activities, but there is nothing inherently sexist about having activities that may attract more of one gender than the other, especially when we make the available to everyone. "
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago