|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jun 23, 2013 12:33:46 GMT -5
Stal, I can see that we're just going to go around in circles like this. Like Nimras said. I'm never going to convince you otherwise. It does not feel inconsistent to me. Help those in need. If they need more help, help them more. A good college education is the fastest way into the middle class.
I never said or believed that you should be ashamed of who you are. You shouldn't. Shame doesn't get anything done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jun 23, 2013 13:29:22 GMT -5
I'm generally in favour of affirmative action, but sometimes the application of it is tricky. Consider the case of police forces wanting to artificially increase the number of women police officers so they can have more of a ~50/50 gender spread. Say they realised that men generally had an "unfair advantage" over women in the selection process, because they did better in tests of physical strength. So, in response, they lower the standards of physical strength required for women. This brings more women into the force but reduces the average strength of police officers who are actively patrolling the city. In times of danger, physically weaker police officers are more likely to pull out their gun. They are also more likely to fire shots, and accidentally injure or kill people they are struggling to restrain. So as a result of lowering standards to increase numbers of women in the force, the community suffers more accidental deaths at the hands of police officers. So my question is: if the police force's selection process gives men an advantage because their general physical strength is higher, should the police force lower the standards for women at the expense of having a weaker force overall? I wanted to weigh in on this one because I have a very strong opinion about police officers. My mom was a cop for five years. She's a short Filipino gal, 5'2" and lightweight. Was she less physically strong than some of the big guys? Sure. But in her academy she was also the fastest draw, the most accurate shot, and the best driver in the class. (Driving through an obstacle course, backward, at speed is a tricky thing to do.) And she was no slouch in the physical department either. She was really fit for her size. She was darn good at what she did. But you know why she quit? Because it was full of sexist pigs. It was only her and a couple other women in a force of I think 30ish guys. She was passed up on promotions by guys who had less experience, worse track records. Dealt with their sexist remarks and attitudes constantly. Considering how much stress an officer has to go through from their actual duties, the extra hostility didn't help. (Not to mention how crappily we pay officers. A secretary's job pays more.) If there had been more women on that force, maybe her and her fellow female officers wouldn't have had to deal with the A-type sausage party that was the police force. My mom quit the force, only a year short of being able to join the K-9 unit, which was her ultimate goal. Law enforcement is not all about being a big fist to push people around. It's not all about restraining hostile suspects. A majority of the job is being a presence of security to the public. (Though a lot of it is directing traffic and filing police reports. XD) It's about going to schools to talk to kids about drugs and safety, hosting free classes at the town center about how people can make their homes more secure. It's about dealing with people, getting victims and suspects and witnesses to trust you and talk to you. It's reasoning with wife about maybe seeking asylum from her abusive husband on the third domestic dispute call of the night. It's calming down the child who's gotten lost. It's dealing level-headedly with the drunk who is probably going to barf in the backseat of your squad car. It's a very, very interpersonal job, which I say women can do just as well as men, if not better. And if you want to go for men are physically stronger, I shall raise you with women generally have better peripheral vision, higher-frequency hearing, and a brain more capable of multitasking and remembering details. So perhaps you might lose a little in the sheer amount of weight your force could bench, but I would say that the added skillset makes up for it. So do I think law enforcement should have slightly different strength standards for women applicants than the men? Yes. Do I think they should be actively trying to balance the genders in the force? Yes. It'll probably never be 50-50, because significantly fewer women apply, but I still think trying to add more women can only be a benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoyti on Jun 23, 2013 14:49:05 GMT -5
I'm generally in favour of affirmative action, but sometimes the application of it is tricky. Consider the case of police forces wanting to artificially increase the number of women police officers so they can have more of a ~50/50 gender spread. Say they realised that men generally had an "unfair advantage" over women in the selection process, because they did better in tests of physical strength. So, in response, they lower the standards of physical strength required for women. This brings more women into the force but reduces the average strength of police officers who are actively patrolling the city. In times of danger, physically weaker police officers are more likely to pull out their gun. They are also more likely to fire shots, and accidentally injure or kill people they are struggling to restrain. So as a result of lowering standards to increase numbers of women in the force, the community suffers more accidental deaths at the hands of police officers. So my question is: if the police force's selection process gives men an advantage because their general physical strength is higher, should the police force lower the standards for women at the expense of having a weaker force overall? I am going to say that no, there should be no attempt to artificially even out the ratio. Standards for women should not be lower, but standards all around should be worked to account for different skillsets. Such as how you don't necessarily need good grades to get into a college. You could get a sports scholarship or recognition for some creative achievement. Standards in physical strength should not be lowered for women. Standards in physical strength should be lowered for those who excel in some other area related to the job. If you're going to hire weaker officers, make sure they have above average competence in some other area. Don't just let them off the hook because of their gender. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Jun 24, 2013 21:31:22 GMT -5
I wanted to weigh in on this one because I have a very strong opinion about police officers. My mom was a cop for five years. She's a short Filipino gal, 5'2" and lightweight. Was she less physically strong than some of the big guys? Sure. But in her academy she was also the fastest draw, the most accurate shot, and the best driver in the class. (Driving through an obstacle course, backward, at speed is a tricky thing to do.) And she was no slouch in the physical department either. She was really fit for her size. She was darn good at what she did. But you know why she quit? Because it was full of sexist pigs. It was only her and a couple other women in a force of I think 30ish guys. She was passed up on promotions by guys who had less experience, worse track records. Dealt with their sexist remarks and attitudes constantly. Considering how much stress an officer has to go through from their actual duties, the extra hostility didn't help. (Not to mention how crappily we pay officers. A secretary's job pays more.) If there had been more women on that force, maybe her and her fellow female officers wouldn't have had to deal with the A-type sausage party that was the police force. My mom quit the force, only a year short of being able to join the K-9 unit, which was her ultimate goal. Law enforcement is not all about being a big fist to push people around. It's not all about restraining hostile suspects. A majority of the job is being a presence of security to the public. (Though a lot of it is directing traffic and filing police reports. XD) It's about going to schools to talk to kids about drugs and safety, hosting free classes at the town center about how people can make their homes more secure. It's about dealing with people, getting victims and suspects and witnesses to trust you and talk to you. It's reasoning with wife about maybe seeking asylum from her abusive husband on the third domestic dispute call of the night. It's calming down the child who's gotten lost. It's dealing level-headedly with the drunk who is probably going to barf in the backseat of your squad car. It's a very, very interpersonal job, which I say women can do just as well as men, if not better. And if you want to go for men are physically stronger, I shall raise you with women generally have better peripheral vision, higher-frequency hearing, and a brain more capable of multitasking and remembering details. So perhaps you might lose a little in the sheer amount of weight your force could bench, but I would say that the added skillset makes up for it. So do I think law enforcement should have slightly different strength standards for women applicants than the men? Yes. Do I think they should be actively trying to balance the genders in the force? Yes. It'll probably never be 50-50, because significantly fewer women apply, but I still think trying to add more women can only be a benefit. Thanks, I honestly hadn't seen it from that perspective before. The example of women in the police force was something I found in a book that was arguing against certain types of affirmative action. But now it looks like there are a lot of other factors which make someone a competent police officer, beyond the amount of weight they can bench. What particularly stood out was your example of a police officer trying to reason with an abused wife about her options for finding help. And Yoyti, I too would hope that the selection process takes account of the broader skill set offered by each applicant, whether male or female. I also think that if the police department sees itself lacking some skills, like say interpersonal skills, it should give more weight to incoming applicants who have the skills it needs so it can intentionally improve the force's overall coverage of skills. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2013 21:14:15 GMT -5
For those people who said sexism isn't really a problem, I would like to point them to this post I made earlier and to these articles: I would also like to mention that an ad I saw for a men's product called "Axe" (which was put in a list of sexist ads) featured skinny women in bikinis running toward the man using it. Ads for women's products that I've seen don't tend to feature men in swimsuits. Generally, they either feature an attractive female using it (like Loreal) and/or nature scenes. |
|
|
|
Post by Thorn on Jun 26, 2013 3:00:05 GMT -5
I've seen loads of girls wearing less than that. 0o
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 27, 2013 10:20:58 GMT -5
Relevant to discussions on this thread: Freakonomics podcast: "Women are not Men" Full transcript of the above podcast can be found here (if you would rather read than listen) And Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion on the Fisher vs University of Texas non-discrimination case: "Unfortunately for the University, the educational benefits flowing from student body diversity– assuming they exist –hardly qualify as a compelling state interest. Indeed, the argument that educational benefits justify racial discrimination was advanced in support of racial segregation in the 1950’s, but emphatically rejected by this Court. And just as the alleged educational benefits of segregation were insufficient to justify racial discrimination then … the alleged educational benefits of diversity cannot justify racial discrimination today." (Copied from this news article; more quotes therein) (Full ruling and dissent can be read here) I also strongly recommend a post on The Last Psychiatrist blog. An article titled "No Self-Respecting Woman Would Go Without Makeup" (written back in Jan, but still on the first page). I'd link to it, but for certain rules I cannot. |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jun 27, 2013 12:59:34 GMT -5
I strongly regret wasting time with The Last Psychiatrist. Purports to know exactly what "I" am thinking Wow, it sure is easy to win an argument when you make up what your opponent thinks and reinterpret what they say to be the point you want to debate. They do this constantly, btw. Not to mention their completely disgusting and combative tone, frequent insults towards women (calling a reporter he doesn't like a fleshlight? Really? That's a sex toy for men, if you didn't know). Saying that women who wear makeup to please themselves are deluded or weak or have the mental age of a toddler. Their conversation to 'you' (ie women) might as well be to an alien for all it reflects my actual views and experiences. And the writer seems to be completely unable to speculate cause to the effects he describes. Women would get paid more if they would just ask for it. Gosh, what reasons mightn't they have to ask for it? Previous social reinforcement against acting aggressive, for one. Women who are aggressive and do ask for raises are seen as 'lady doggy' and 'undesirable', which are not really good ways to be viewed if you're trying to make a career. Then there's the whole bit that they um, are actually asking. The idea that it's women's fault that they are paid less and that they just need to 'do it right' is really obnoxious. And incorrect.There's a ton of stuff just outrageously wrong and irritating about the article but I've already wasted MORE than enough time on it and pretty much ruined my morning. Why oh why would you want me to read something by a person who hates me so much and so fervently. The Freakonomics transcript is interesting and even handed. It actually explores the ideas of causation. It gives you ideas to jump off from instead of and have a conversation instead of just being 'yelled' at. Completely incidental but when I edit wikipedia I just let it record my ip. I don't have an editor account. The study can't count me. I wonder how many other women edit incognito. Also completely incidental is my own experience with asking for a raise, which ended soooo badly that I honestly would be less likely to do it again in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 27, 2013 13:22:11 GMT -5
Why oh why would you want me to read something by a person who hates me so much and so fervently. To further the conversation. Is it any different than me reading Dawkins or other hostile posts to my viewpoints from people who hate what I believe/stand for? Can be infuriating, but these are things being said, influencing opinions, and having impacts. Not being aware doesn't make it any less... There. That thing has been showing up in my circles a bit lately. Started with a girl (former forum member here) who actually shared that post and loved it. It took me by surprise that she loved it, but yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jun 27, 2013 13:31:31 GMT -5
Well, having never read Dawkins at least I know him by reputation enough to not recommend him 'strongly' to people I know to be Christian. I'd think that his extreme antagonism would reflect poorly on myself and my views. And if he were to be shared, I would make it clear my take on him so the other side of the discussion would know where I was coming from.
You should know from my opinion on freethoughtpedia or whatever that wretched thing was that popped up in the religious apologetics thread how I feel about needlessly antagonistic sources. Conclusion since no one wants to go hunt that up: The initial impression is that you recommend it because you agree. True or not it colors the discourse in a very ugly way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Jun 27, 2013 13:37:20 GMT -5
I'm with Teow on that Last Psychiatrist article. It's written in such an openly hostile way, I can't imagine why you would even recommend it, Stal. I seriously hope you don't feel that way towards women, because that guy has a problem. What "good points" does he bring up that you feel should be discussed? Because I don't really see the good points in calling women who wear makeup for themselves as two-year olds. The concept of who women wear makeup for is a point that could easily be addressed by dozens of articles that aren't nearly so insulting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 27, 2013 13:38:31 GMT -5
Well, having never read Dawkins at least I know him by reputation enough to not recommend him 'strongly' to people I know to be Christian. I'd think that his extreme antagonism would reflect poorly on myself and my views. And if he were to be shared, I would make it clear my take on him so the other side of the discussion would know where I was coming from. You should know from my opinion on freethoughtpedia or whatever that wretched thing was that popped up in the religious apologetics thread how I feel about needlessly antagonistic sources. Conclusion since no one wants to go hunt that up: The initial impression is that you recommend it because you agree. True or not it colors the discourse in a very ugly way. That's true. Easy conclusion to draw. I was mostly consolidating links that had come back across my path in the past week that I felt were relevant to current discussion. (And then not long after I posted it, I came across another podcast that has some relevancy too... Will post later) (As an aside, I do recommend Dawkins and others to Christians, and read articles that tick me off as needlessly antagonistic-- I take their voice and tone into consideration, but I do seek them out) |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jun 27, 2013 13:47:30 GMT -5
And do you quantify the Dawkins articles when you recommend them to others, or just kinda slap them out there like you did with that link? If the later, you might want to work on that.
Edit: and there is the matter of a known Christian recommending Dawkins to other known Christians vs someone who admittedly thinks little of feminism recommending that. Like, if I linked that Lone Psychiatrist article to my sister she'd think I was taking the tinkle for sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 27, 2013 13:49:36 GMT -5
I'm with Teow on that Last Psychiatrist article. It's written in such an openly hostile way, I can't imagine why you would even recommend it, Stal. I seriously hope you don't feel that way towards women, because that guy has a problem. What "good points" does he bring up that you feel should be discussed? Because I don't really see the good points in calling women who wear makeup for themselves as two-year olds. The concept of who women wear makeup for is a point that could easily be addressed by dozens of articles that aren't nearly so insulting. The fact it is so offensive and hostile is actually one of the reasons I recommended it. I said it was relevant to current discussions. Why might I think it's relevant? I didn't say good points. I didn't say the author got it all right. (he or she--I've yet to find an exact gender, and other articles written imply female as much as this implies male) I simply said relevant. Why is it relevant? It addresses sexism. It's heavy handed, offensive, and talks down to a group of women it disagrees with. It talks about sexist topics in ways that are atypical. It's extremely relevant in many ways, just the existence of the article itself is relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jun 27, 2013 13:51:12 GMT -5
Now see, that is some grade-A butt covering. If that was your intention with the link in the first place it would have been easy to say so. I have to assume it was entirely your intent to antagonize.
And if you think being talked down to like that in regards to feminism is anything new or that a hostile delivery is atypical. Well.
|
|
