"It's not a big deal"

[JCC]

I hate guys who are like "Hey, I like women, I'm for equality, I mean, women are better at multi-tasking" and shit like that.

POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION IS NOT EQUALITY.

CRACK A FUCKING BOOK.

Oh, also someone called me a chauvinist because I believe in sex outside of a relationship. ... Except that I read Feminist books and follow Feminist thought and identify as a Feminist. People suck.

[Solumina]

How does sex outside of a relationship make someone a chauvinist?

[JCC]

No idea. He described it as sadistic too. Weird.

[Solumina]

hm...I'm going to assume that he has some issues

[Paigeybobert]

Originally Posted by TopHaggardDoll

Part of it is, I think it's pushed as the ideal goal in life by society.

You probably wont agree but that's my conclusion.

Shit, I agree with you.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by JCC

I hate guys who are like "Hey, I like women, I'm for equality, I mean, women are better at multi-tasking" and shit like that.

POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION IS NOT EQUALITY.

CRACK A FUCKING BOOK.

Oh, also someone called me a chauvinist because I believe in sex outside of a relationship. ... Except that I read Feminist books and follow Feminist thought and identify as a Feminist. People suck.

Fuck feminism. Every "feminist" I've met is a man bashing hypocrite. How about people try to be civil rights activists and not feminists? Why not be in favor of everyone having rights instead of focusing on a group. Isn't pointing out a group in order to help with their rights discriminating amongst gender anyway?

[Solumina]

Dude learn the difference between a feminist and a feminazi. The reason why people pick a group to advocate is because it really isn't feasible for someone to be able to help every single group out there, change doesn't happen instantaneously, and it certainly doesn't happen without any effort. Not to mention all of the legislation that would need to either be enacted or nullified (much of which is quite specific) in order for there to be equality under the law, and all of the drafting for all of that legislation takes a fuck ton of effort (not to mention all of the effort to actually pass the damn things). That and nobody said that if you are a feminist that you can't support other struggles for equality.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Wormboy

Fuck feminism. Every "feminist" I've met is a man bashing hypocrite.

Then why are you calling them feminists?

How about people try to be civil rights activists and not feminists? Why not be in favor of everyone having rights instead of focusing on a group. Isn't pointing out a group in order to help with their rights discriminating amongst gender anyway?

An ideal of equal rights for everyone is passive. Let's get rid of the NAACP and LGBTQI and MEChA and other organizations.
Next time a minority is discriminated, what then? Let everyone feel bad that it happened and feel that if it were up to them it wouldn't have happened?
Organizations demand assertive action in the face of real issues.
The NAACP does not distance whites from blacks because it focuses on blacks. Racism exists, and the NAACP assertively and constantly tries to do away with it.
Sexism exists, and feminism assertively and constantly tries to do away with it.

[JCC]

I said I'm a Feminist, not a Feminist Separatist or something like that. Feminism (or at least what I advocate) aims for equal rights for men and women, from Wollstonecraft to the Sufragettes to me.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by JCC

POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION

Every time I hear that phrase, I think of that Affirmative Action bullshit.

[JCC]

Yeah, Affirmative Action is bullshit, private business should be allowed to make their own decisions, regardless of how ugly those decisions may be.

[Tam Li Hua]

To be perfectly honest, I think this is a classic example of nitpicking. :/

I would like to -not- have unisex bathrooms, except in the house. It would disturb me greatly to go into a multi-stall bathroom and see some hairy, creepy guy washing his hands and leering at me. x_x;;; Not only that, but I think many guys would find it difficult to urinate if they knew that strange women were in the bathroom with them.

As for commercials...it's -not- a big deal. It's business. Someone, somewhere figured out that they could sell more toilet paper if the man speaks first, I guess. [But, then again, I rarely have noticed what you are describing here. I can think of a LOT of commercials where the woman was the first to speak.]

Anyways, I think this may be a classic case of over-feminism, and that things really aren't as dramatic as you make them seem.

[Tam Li Hua]

To explain further, I believe that such things as the design of a bathroom and what commercials consist of is generated according to how the contractors think the public is most likely to respond in a positive way. For instance, if all the bathrooms in America were suddenly changed to unisex, the majority of Americans would be very upset. Also, if ads for, say cleaning products were advertized during the game instead of during soap operas, they would lose sales.

Folks sell to whomever they think will buy the most of a product, which is likely to be stay-at-home moms. [To add to -that-, it is NOT wrong for a woman to want this. If you want TRUE equality, then you have to be okay with the notion that some moms ENJOY staying home with the kids.]

[Anonymoose]

Originally Posted by JCC

Yeah, Affirmative Action is bullshit, private business should be allowed to make their own decisions, regardless of how ugly those decisions may be.

No. Employment should be anonymous. The employee is hired soley on the abilities and skills they have. Not on their personal life, gender, religion, sex, or orientation and even those that haven't been mentioned. This effectively gets rid of affirmative action.

You could even interview on-line or at a booth at the place of the work to further protect an individual's sovereignty from a bigoted employer.

Does one who holds the keys to food and shelter have the right to be a bigot? Furthermore, is it folly upon the individual to let someone hold that much power over them?

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Anonymoose

No. Employment should be anonymous. The employee is hired soley on the abilities and skills they have. Not on their personal life, gender, religion, sex, or orientation and even those that haven't been mentioned. This effectively gets rid of affirmative action.

You could even interview on-line or at a booth at the place of the work to further protect an individual's sovereignty from a bigoted employer.

Does one who holds the keys to food and shelter have the right to be a bigot? Furthermore, is it folly upon the individual to let someone hold that much power over them?

Employment should be made on whatever whims the employer has. If said employer is a member of the KKK, he should be allowed to only employ white Nationalist protestants. He's an asshole, but I think it's his right as a private business owner to do what he wants with it.

[Anonymoose]

Originally Posted by JCC

Employment should be made on whatever whims the employer has. If said employer is a member of the Mickey Mouse Klub, he should be allowed to only employ white Nationalist protestants. He's an asshole, but I think it's his right as a private business owner to do what he wants with it.

Well... that's fairly dismissive. An enabler for corporatism. Good luck. I honestly think nothing needs to be said here. You're crystal clear.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

It would disturb me greatly to go into a multi-stall bathroom and see some hairy, creepy guy washing his hands and leering at me. x_x;;; Not only that, but I think many guys would find it difficult to urinate if they knew that strange women were in the bathroom with them.

It wouldn't be a problem if, you know, people would be adults about it.

[Wormboy]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

It wouldn't be a problem if, you know, people would be adults about it.

That, my dear, is a MASSIVE if.





IF


Like so

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

As for commercials...it's -not- a big deal. It's business.

This is precisely why I made this thread. Not to speak about discrimination, but to speak about this particular attitude, and I think no one has.
Just tell me this: If a commercial announced "our product is so good that we don't sell it to n.iggers" and that sells, would you not care?

I'm pretty sure you would. But you don't see the one I first mentioned "as a big deal" because you're used to it.

[Anonymoose]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

This is precisely why I made this thread. Not to speak about discrimination, but to speak about this particular attitude, and I think no one has.
Just tell me this: If a commercial announced "our product is so good that we don't sell it to n.iggers" and that sells, would you not care?

I'm pretty sure you would. But you don't see the one I first mentioned "as a big deal" because you're used to it.

THANK YOU. I've been trying to put my finger on that attitude for a while. Trying to identify what it is.

It may not be a big deal to someone else, but somewhere it is a big deal for a single solitary person. Are these indifferent attitudes implying that that single person doesn't have a voice?

Essentially, if the world discriminates against just one single person in the world, is that still not an injustice?

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Just tell me this: If a commercial announced "our product is so good that we don't sell it to n.iggers" and that sells, would you not care?

That's in no way comparable. Commercials of the kind you're addressing are saying "this product will most probably appeal to this type of person, and we recognize that", not "only this type of person is allowed to buy this product" or "this type of person is better than other types of people".

[Godslayer Jillian]

Gender roles, racism, class expectations... they are all ways to prohibit certain people from certain actions.
The rationalization that has been given to me was "business is business and they do what sells" and that's what I did. Your opinion would be entirely arbitrary if 'business is just business'.

[Anonymoose]

I think what he's talking about in those regards is changing how things are presented. People adhere and identify with steriotypes. They're like cues for behavior. If people were to consciously avoid steriotypes for example, men promoting cleaning products and being depicted as a stay at home dad for example, a saturation of say... and I hate to use this term, "counter steriotypes", may cause people to think more critically instead of just being reactionary.

Most Nike shoe commercials show African athletes. Sure, it can make a quick buck, but is it ethical to reinforce and augment social discriminations for it?

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Gender roles, racism, class expectations... they are all ways to prohibit certain people from certain actions.
The rationalization that has been given to me was "business is business and they do what sells" and that's what I did. Your opinion would be entirely arbitrary if 'business is just business'.

I think you're confusing cause and consequence. That, say, commercials for easy bake ovens feature children exclusively may serve to reinforce the idea that men shouldn't cook, but that notion is, regrettably, already a cultural standard that is not easily overcome. The business can't be blamed for recognizing this and marketing their product accordingly-- their goal isn't to undermine women's lib, it's to make money.

[Godslayer Jillian]

I apologize if I actually have, but I'm pretty sure I have never blamed businesses here.
Haven't I been talking about society this whole time?
It sounds ludicrous to me that someone would have inferred from what I said that I blame businesses for promoting standards beneficial to them while the rest of society wants change.
No; it seems pretty obvious that if businesses to this, it is because society accepts this. Does that mean if society accepts something it is right?