View Single Post

Default 

October 7th, 2011, 16:26
Originally Posted by Ubereil View Post
What about someone who is biologically a man but psychologically a woman - is that a man or a woman?
They need help. Seriously though, if someone blatantly dresses up as the opposite sex, fine, i will refer to them as that. To each his own, but if I see aguy wearing a football jersey, jeans and a baseball cap, I'm not going to refer to him as it until he tells me which pronoun he prefers. It's ridiculous.

What about hermaphrodites - man or woman?
That's a fair question, but again, most of them either dress as male or female. And if someone calls them the wrong one, its a simply mistake, not some act of tyranny.

What about the division between men and women in the first place - what's really the big, important difference that's so important to distinguish between? Why aren't we making a division like that between blue and brown eyed pepole?
Because blue and brown eyes is a very minor difference. It's coloring, not a different in body/brain chemistry, sexual organs, etc. The simple fact is men and women ARE different. That's not a bad thing. That's not to say that people should be locked into gender specific roles or something, but we're not just all just asexual entities.

What are the potential problems of referring to men and women with different words? Well, we might promote a division where there is none, thus promoting prejudice and separate treatment where no prejudice or separate treatment is warranted. We might not. But if we stop doing so, instead using one word to referr to both sexes, what do we lose, really?
We lose our identities. Referring to a person as male or female doesn't promote prejudice or separate treatment (at least not prejudicial separate treatment). We make people feel bad simply for being who they are (Stand at the back of the like white male!). It's over sensitivity at its worst.


Well, we live in a society whose norms have it's base in old europe. They have their base in a society built to serve white males in particular. A lot has changed, of course, and a lot of improvement has been made regarding equality. But there are still patterns of thoughts alive that keeps white males slightly ahead of the rest. It's easier for them to gain trust, for instance, and it's more natural for them to take room.

With that in mind, how are we to level the field? Because if we do nothing it's going to be the women and blacks (especially the black women) who will have to stand at the back of the subconcious line while the white males subconciously walk ahead of them.
It's pretty simple. You treat people equally. You don't belittle one group just because historically they ran the show. I'm a white male. Just like the women and blacks you reference, I have done nothing to deserve to be treated any less than anyone else. To treat me worse in some effort to make up for past sins is as bad as the white males who committed those sins.

And I didn't intend to imply that you're cool with opressing women/blacks. I don't think that's your problem. The problem instead is that you think that white men are on the same level as non-whites and women, so if we just make the same rules apply to everyone things will be solved. Because of the heteronormativity that just isn't the case, though. The heteronormativity is (pretty much) a set of unwritten rules for how we are to treat other pepole in society, and it has different rules for white men than for others.
We have laws in place to address that and the progress the world has seen in the past 40 years is evidence enough that things have changed a lot. Perfectly equal yet? Of course not. There are numerous other things not relating to any prejudice that inhibit that, but again devaluing one segment of society is no better than devaluing any other. It's the old adage: Two wrongs don't make a right.

It's one of my favorite thing about Scandinavia: secondary education truly is avaliable to all. And thus we don't have those loads of pepole complaining about how they can't get through college because of their financial situation.
I'd be interested to learn the economics of it. From what people in the UK have told me, the structure of secondary education is very different in most of Europe compared to the US. I'm curious how that affects the cost.


I suspect it's because it's financial aid and absolutely nothing else. It doesn't adress why the recipients are in a situation where they need welfare/medicade, and thus won't end up being more than symptom treatment in a lot of cases.
Definitely some. There also, at least prior to Clinton, was the issue that people immediately lost public assistance once they got a job, and often that job netted them less money.

————————————————-

"Ya'll can go to HELL! I'm-a-goin' to TEXAS!"

- Davy Crockett
blatantninja is offline

blatantninja

blatantninja's Avatar
Resident Redneck Facist

#78

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,158