Necessary double standards?

[ElPatron]

Positive discrimination

Yes, let's shit up the way things are (not too well) just for the sake of having a false sense of "equality".

Also, discrimination = not equality. It's perpetuating the thing you're trying to fight.

By 10, though, you ought to be going to the toilets by yourself. I don't know any parent who'd argue against that, unless they're ridiculously overprotective and paranoid.

Or maybe there are just a lot of dangerous people around? Or maybe because the 10 year old child can be intimidated by the adults there?

If I were ten and walked into a restroom where there were goths, guys with pedophile glasses or anything that might intimidate a kid, I would go DEFCON-fucking-ONE and suspend all excretory functions for half a day.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

Positive discrimination always has a negative factor for the other party.

In your scenario isnt the person not hired under negative descrimination? Is there a difference between hiring someone for being female and NOT hiring someone for being male? From the person who isnt hired's perspective is there a difference? If you are denied a job because the competition is female its practically the same as being denied because you are male.

In the same way slavery was positive discrimination for white people. All discrimination have a positive and negative aspect for two different peoples.

 

[Jordi]

Male and female sports teams. Men and women have biological differences that make inter-gender sports seem unfair. If men are a little stronger just because they have a Y chromosome, how is that fair to the female athletes? Male and female restrooms are another one too, although I'm not totally sold that its a necessity only that in my society its a necessity.

Some people are born with more aptitude to be athletic than others. If you're born to be a scrawny short dude, then that isn't really any more fair than being born without a Y chromosome is it? It's not like they're going to make a pro basketball league for people born without the tall-gene. Why is making a division based on gender more acceptable than divisions based on height, ethnicity, aptitude, whatever?

It's not that I really mind, or would even like to change it, but I just wonder why this particular double standard is so universally accepted and usually not even questioned.

I don't really think any double standards are strictly necessary. On the other hand, I'm not really convinced that ignoring or trying to remove (virtually) all differences between men and women would be desirable.

But in sports, they do "discriminate" on tall ones, for example. If you are in a basketball team and you are small, chances are you are not gonna get picked unless you are very skilled.

And that, I think, is the biggest problem when talking about sports and gender standards.

If the average woman is smaller and weaker than the average man, then the average woman will be picked less for sports that require size ans strength.
And you wont start letting in girls (or boys) just to have "gender equality".

In other regards, like bathrooms or employment, double standards are probably not necessary, but how do you handle sports, where those sort-of gender defined attributes are the biggest measure of worth?

I don't see anything wrong with encouragement to certain gender, like one poster said about male nurses.

I think the "issue" is that we are more focused on gender than on other, maybe equally (un)fair things. Sure, if we would have all unisex sports, then the number of men at the top would vastly outnumber the number of women. Just like in professional basketball and volleyball the number of tall people vastly outnumber the number of short people, and the number of black people in the Olympic 100m dash final vastly outnumbers the number of white/asian people (although that may also be cultural).

So why do we have separate pro-leagues for men and women, but not for tall and short people? How is being born without a Y-chromosome any less fair (in this regard) than being born without the gene to be tall? Why is it worse to discriminate against women than it is to discriminate against short people?

And by the way, it wouldn't even be gender/height discrimination. That's another problem I sometimes have with discrimination debates: whenever one group is not as well represented somewhere, some people immediately assume that they're being discriminated against based on their distinguishing characteristic (e.g. gender), instead of based on some grounds that we're more comfortable to use for discrimination (e.g. skill, interest).

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

There is only so many times you can watch someone who is at best vastly inferior and usually incompetent get promoted ahead of you and end up with you having to carry their dead weight simply because they are a minority until the discrimination leads you to hate them for it.

Yes, read this part of your post again, and then read mine. Then read your part, then read mine. Then facepalm.

Why? He's just saying that discrimination of any kind is bad.

OP:Bathrooms, dressing rooms, sports teams, ...those are the first things that come to mind.

 

[Phasmal]

Bathrooms
Sports Teams
Childcare

I'm sure there are others, but these are the three that come to me off the top of my head.

Childcare is one of those things that I've read too many news articles about children being cared for by creeps. I don't care if it's right or wrong, but men just need to pick a different profession other than childcare because I will never be comfortable with it. Is it fair? Probably not, but since you can't tell which pool has been proverbially pissed in, it's best not swim in any of them.

As someone who works with kids, this makes me sad.
I've worked with a few guys and they're not creepy at all, but they get bad looks just because they are men.
They are every bit as capable and while there have been some horror stories there are many more men who work with children simply because they enjoy doing so. Not to mention nurseries are always on the lookout for abuse and have pages and pages of protocol about what to do if a child even hints at it.

 

[FalloutJack]

Gimme a list of double standards and I'll figure it out.

 

[orangeban]

And as much as i oppose discriminating against transexuals, they should simply go to the room they currently have the parts for. Just like everyone else.

Except, the problem is when we get a trans person who looks exactly like their identified gender, they just don't have the right genitals. What's safer for them, to go into the changing room for the other gender, or the one for the gender they identify with?

Plus, whenever you enforce a rule like that, it ends up only affecting those trans people who can't pass, since those who can pass will never be questioned.

 

[Vault101]

Which double standards do you think are necessary? I was just thinking about how female-on-male sexual harassment is often used as a topic of humour for sitcoms, but if it wasn't funny to so many, it wouldn't be used, would it? Admittedly, that kind of sexual harassment is pretty rare. So I'm not sure whether or not it's bad for them to use it, even if it is a double standard.

no...not really

it also re enforces the steryotype that man are raging hormones and "any sex is good sex" for them and all kinds of uncomfortable stuff

 

[Ryotknife]

Hmm, tricky subject. If a black guy and myself (white guy) applied to the same position and every single test/relevent piece of data shows that the two of us are equally capable of fulfilling the role, then honestly it would not bother me if the black guy got it to due his race.

does it suck for me? sure. Is it morally right? no. But it would suck far more if the black guy didnt get the job, therefore the practical solution is to give it to him. Really it would only bother me if i was the better candidate and he still got it. But every person is different.

In terms of if double stanards are moral or not, i would say that all double standards are immoral. However, since the question is are all double standards unneccessary, it is a different question. The typical media/TV stereotype of intelligent female, stupid male in comedy is also immoral, but it makes me laugh. Therefore, is removing this the right course of action if it means that our lives could be lesser for it? Personal opinion only here, but the negatives of the double standard are negated by the positives of this particular double standard (I will leave arguing the upsides and downsides of this particular double standard when it comes to women to someone else).

 

[TheMann]

I'm not trying to be mean, but I'm starting to think that only about half the people here know what a double standard is. I'm not personally attacking any of the people I quote here, I'm just giving examples. For instance:

Male and female sports teams. Men and women have biological differences that make inter-gender sports seem unfair. If men are a little stronger just because they have a Y chromosome, how is that fair to the female athletes? Male and female restrooms are another one too, although I'm not totally sold that its a necessity only that in my society its a necessity.

It's not complicated at all. A person with a dick goes to the mens' rooms and a person with a vagina goes to the lady's room. Your sexual identity is irrelevant.

These are not examples of double standards. These are examples of segregation. Basically the concept that people from group A go here, while people from group B go there. What both groups do in wherever they are placed is considered irrelevant, as long as they remain in their respective positions or locations.

Childcare is one of those things that I've read too many news articles about children being cared for by creeps. I don't care if it's right or wrong, but men just need to pick a different profession other than childcare because I will never be comfortable with it. Is it fair? Probably not, but since you can't tell which pool has been proverbially pissed in, it's best not swim in any of them.

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

These are not examples of double standards, these are examples of discrimination. Basically the concept that people from group A, are automatically better suited to a certain skill or position than someone from group B. On a side note, as already pointed out a couple of times, I hate the term "positive discrimination". If a woman is hired instead of a man, and the only deciding factor in the decision is gender, than the employers are not discriminating for the woman, they are discriminating against the man.

On the other hand:

Which double standards do you think are necessary? I was just thinking about how female-on-male sexual harassment is often used as a topic of humour for sitcoms, but if it wasn't funny to so many, it wouldn't be used, would it? Admittedly, that kind of sexual harassment is pretty rare. So I'm not sure whether or not it's bad for them to use it, even if it is a double standard.

Taekwondo. I had to spar some tiny Asian girl. Kicked her once during the sparring match. The girl's mom gave me hell. I didn't even kick hard...

See, these are examples of double standards. A double standard is when a certain action performed by group A elicits a different response than if the exact same action was performed by group B. And no, I don't think any double standards are acceptable. They tend to promote a horrid values dissonance in culture. Think if Tony would have given all he had in his Taekwondo class and had thoroughly trashed the girl he was sparring against. He would been viewed as a giant asshole. Now, if the girl had given him the beating of a lifetime, she'd be commended on how well she did. As far as the OP's post, I completely agree with that. Sexual harassment can make it just as uncomfortable for a man to go to work as a woman, but pop-culture tends to view female on male harassment as humorous, while male on female as despicable. This is even worse for assault. Suppose a man is saying horrible vile things to a woman and she turns around and punches him in the face. The general reaction? "You go girl!" A man punches a woman under the exact same circumstances? "Lock him up forever!" Men have a hard time when their wife is beating on them, because they'll generally just get laughed at, and are even afraid to defend themselves for the fear that they will be the ones getting jailed as a result.

Spoiler: Here is another great example.

Personally I find those women incredibly pervy, but you can help but agree with what's written there.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

I don't think there are any necessary double-standards simply because if something is necessary (separate sex bathrooms, sports teams, etc) it isn't really a double standard.

 

[orangeban]

And as much as i oppose discriminating against transexuals, they should simply go to the room they currently have the parts for. Just like everyone else.

Except, the problem is when we get a trans person who looks exactly like their identified gender, they just don't have the right genitals. What's safer for them, to go into the changing room for the other gender, or the one for the gender they identify with?

Plus, whenever you enforce a rule like that, it ends up only affecting those trans people who can't pass, since those who can pass will never be questioned.

It's not as if they're actually watching you use the toilet. So, I don't really see the problem in letting a transgender person enter the restroom of the gender they identify with.

Exactly, that's the real crux of the issue.

 

[zumbledum]

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

There is only so many times you can watch someone who is at best vastly inferior and usually incompetent get promoted ahead of you and end up with you having to carry their dead weight simply because they are a minority until the discrimination leads you to hate them for it.

Yes, read this part of your post again, and then read mine. Then read your part, then read mine. Then facepalm.

were talking about positive discrimination, yours is a fantasy world mine is how it actually turned out to be and the conclusion stands. this is why my post contained a counter explanation of the idea and a reason why its wrong at its core.

 

[Realitycrash]

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

There is only so many times you can watch someone who is at best vastly inferior and usually incompetent get promoted ahead of you and end up with you having to carry their dead weight simply because they are a minority until the discrimination leads you to hate them for it.

Yes, read this part of your post again, and then read mine. Then read your part, then read mine. Then facepalm.

were talking about positive discrimination, yours is a fantasy world mine is how it actually turned out to be and the conclusion stands. this is why my post contained a counter explanation of the idea and a reason why its wrong at its core.

Mine is a situation a described as where positive discrimination would be valid. The fact that it rarely happens as it is supposed to happen (i.e that morons get promoted just because they are a different gender) doesn't invalidate the premise that when it happens correctly, it is a good thing.

Why? Why is discrimination a "good thing"?
God, big picture, people, BIG PICTURE. Sometimes, you have to do something bad in the short turn to have a great yield in the long run. If an more equal society is beneficial, then having to do some short-term discrimination to get long-term greater levels of equality is acceptable.


What is that, I hear? Fifty angry posters screaming "HEY! THAT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN!".
Well, alright, you can join the debate, after you read this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

Now you can either claim that the research done is incorrect, or you can drop the issue.
If you want to claim that the research is incorrect, then I doubt I can rationally convince you otherwise, and we will simply have to agree to disagree (and you will have to continue be bitter and angry, since most western countries seem to embrace Positive Discrimination, and will continue to do so).

 

[Skratt]

-snip-

If all were equal in candidates for a job, how do you propose a choice be made to avoid the appearance of discrimination?

 

[Skratt]

Bathrooms
Sports Teams
Childcare

I'm sure there are others, but these are the three that come to me off the top of my head.

Childcare is one of those things that I've read too many news articles about children being cared for by creeps. I don't care if it's right or wrong, but men just need to pick a different profession other than childcare because I will never be comfortable with it. Is it fair? Probably not, but since you can't tell which pool has been proverbially pissed in, it's best not swim in any of them.

As someone who works with kids, this makes me sad.
I've worked with a few guys and they're not creepy at all, but they get bad looks just because they are men.
They are every bit as capable and while there have been some horror stories there are many more men who work with children simply because they enjoy doing so. Not to mention nurseries are always on the lookout for abuse and have pages and pages of protocol about what to do if a child even hints at it.

I can certainly understand your view. Another poster actually asked me what the fuck is wrong with me for holding that view. It's none of their fucking business. Let's just say I still don't know how to tell the difference between a perfectly acceptable man who likes being around kids and a creep who seeks them out. If I could, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I wish my views on this were not tainted by personal experience, but they are. It's not fair that even one man has to live with the problems caused by something some other asshole did.

I would never advocate that men be banned or outlawed from childcare, but until I am exposed to Gamma radiation and get a mind reading super power, it's not something I am ever going to be comfortable with.

Just for the record, I am referring specifically to child care - baby sitting, nanny, child care center workers and the like, not men who work with school age kids. Once the kids can talk I'm not as uncomfortable with the situation.

 

[blackrave]

I don't even know.
Not using high caliber ballistic and chemical weapons against enemy?

Why double standard?
If you kill enemy soldier with small caliber bullets most media will not give a shit.
But post pictures of someone ripped to shreds by anti-personnel weapons or burnt to crisp with napalm and there will be huge uproar.

Why it is dumb?
Who cares how person dies? When you die you die. Simple as that.
Don't stage holly rage just because your belief that war isn't messy was proven wrong.

Why it is necessary?
Saving resources and money.
Also chemical weapons have high level of collateral damage.

Any other acceptable double-standards?
There is nothing else I can think of.

 

[zumbledum]

Mine is a situation a described as where positive discrimination would be valid. The fact that it rarely happens as it is supposed to happen (i.e that morons get promoted just because they are a different gender) doesn't invalidate the premise that when it happens correctly, it is a good thing.

Why? Why is discrimination a "good thing"?
God, big picture, people, BIG PICTURE. Sometimes, you have to do something bad in the short turn to have a great yield in the long run. If an more equal society is beneficial, then having to do some short-term discrimination to get long-term greater levels of equality is acceptable.


What is that, I hear? Fifty angry posters screaming "HEY! THAT HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN!".
Well, alright, you can join the debate, after you read this book: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

Now you can either claim that the research done is incorrect, or you can drop the issue.
If you want to claim that the research is incorrect, then I doubt I can rationally convince you otherwise, and we will simply have to agree to disagree (and you will have to continue be bitter and angry, since most western countries seem to embrace Positive Discrimination, and will continue to do so).

I havent read the book but i did read the wiki, can i take it the book is pointing out all the benefits that come around from an equal society and a whole bunch of proof that it makes it better for everyone?

well we already know that, its a given. i dont dispute any of it. but it wasnt the point.

what i do dispute is that more discrimination achieves it, it doesn't it retards the goal. discrimination comes about through fear or ignorance, Education is the way to counter it not more discrimination.

Even if we change reality so that the discrimination only happens on equals it still does nothing to help its saying women blacks and other minorities are inferior and need special help. it still fosters an attitude of discrimination.

the correct method is to create laws that say we are all equal and treats us like it and education to the fact.

 

[deadish]

"Flammable topic" ... a bit reluctant to get into it but ...

As long as the genders (and in general people) are significantly different, different (hence "double") standards will be necessary.

That's all I have to say. LOL. (edit: Or not ...)

 

[Ledan]

The only acceptable double standards exist in a state of nature. Like men being forced into war back when fighting was all about physical strength.
I can't think of any double standards that are necessary today.