Originally posted by Astner
Discriminating against a straight middle class white man is like a five year old teaching a mathematician to count on his fingers, it's cute but at the end of the day no one's offended.
So what you're saying is that non-whites are like children? Damn now we'll have to carry them around all the time, what a burden for us white guys.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosIt IS difficult being the most advantaged group on Earth. The world owes us a debt for carrying them to the future.
So what you're saying is that non-whites are like children? Damn now we'll have to carry them around all the time, what a burden for us white guys.
Originally posted by Raisen
The way I read it was that white people are the masters of discrimination and thus they cannot be discriminated against.The whole statement was very discriminatory.
The way you describe it, that means it is a double standard.
I just don't feel slighted for being called a "cracker" or "honkey" even if it is stated with as much vitriol as possible. That does not mean people should get to discriminate against something I was born as, however.
Originally posted by Raisen
The way I read it was that white people are the masters of discrimination and thus they cannot be discriminated against.The whole statement was very discriminatory.
That's how I read it, too. Though I didn't take offense, because I think it's basically true. Not because individual white people discriminate a lot on purpose necessarily, but because the whole dominant western culture is very white centric.
Also I didn't take offense cause Astner sometimes just says things...and one can safely ignore it.
Originally posted by Raisen
why are white people the most advantageous? was it given to them originally?
Whites, especially in the west, but to some degree everywhere, have advantages due to 500 years of imperialism and the hegemonic white supremacist culture that resulted from it and influences a lot of things globally.
It's not an inherent "betterness" or anything.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's how I read it, too. Though I didn't take offense, because I think it's basically true. Not because individual white people discriminate a lot on purpose necessarily, but because the whole dominant western culture is very white centric.Also I didn't take offense cause Astner sometimes just says things...and one can safely ignore it.
Whites, especially in the west, but to some degree everywhere, have advantages due to 500 years of imperialism and the hegemonic white supremacist culture that resulted from it and influences a lot of things globally.
It's not an inherent "betterness" or anything.
you managed to give me answers without being an a hole. I appreciate it.
I really didn't take offense to astner either. just didn't know what he was saying.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's how I read it, too. Though I didn't take offense, because I think it's basically true. Not because individual white people discriminate a lot on purpose necessarily, but because the whole dominant western culture is very white centric.Also I didn't take offense cause Astner sometimes just says things...and one can safely ignore it.
Whites, especially in the west, but to some degree everywhere, have advantages due to 500 years of imperialism and the hegemonic white supremacist culture that resulted from it and influences a lot of things globally.
It's not an inherent "betterness" or anything.
Clearly, we were blessed people. Don't deny it on the altar of political correctness.
I mean, look at that rhythm.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Similar arguments can be made for women only gyms (for example the tendency of certain men to make women feel uncomfortable or creeped out by oogling or hitting on them).That's what I'm saying, when you look at two situations that appear similar or the same to you, you should look at the surrounding issues and figure out whether they really are similar at all.
Re: Acceptable discrimination?
Originally posted by KharmaDogI often register on "blacks only" forums and pretend I'm black.
I was watching Football yesterday and I saw an advertisement for Blackpeoplemeet.com.I can't help think that if there had been a internationally televised commercial for a "whites only" dating service that there would have been a stink raised somewhere.
When is discrimination acceptable?
Originally posted by Oliver North
how about this, you admit that you feel intimidated and insecure with women sexualizing you, and you can have a men-only gym
I never claimed that I feel intimidated by women sexualizing me or something; Like any man, I do like attention from women. However, I would like to visit "men exclusive places" where I can express myself/behave more openly then I would in company of women in general and not distracted by sexual tension/attention involving female gender. This is normal human psychology irrespective of gender.
As far as gym argument is concerned; people go to gyms to work out and many may not appreciate or crave sexual attention in such a setting. Its not as if men would want to be sexualized in every damn possible setting in the world.
Even from gender equality perspective, if women are getting exclusive places, men should as well.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
So men do not need "men only places" where they can express themselves more openly then they would in company of women?I never claimed that I feel intimidated by women sexualizing me or something; Like any man, I do like attention from women. However, I would like to visit "men exclusive places" where I can express myself/behave more openly then I would in company of women in general and not distracted by sexual tension/attention involving female gender. This is normal human psychology irrespective of gender.
As far as gym argument is concerned; people go to gyms to work out and many may not appreciate or crave sexual attention in such a setting. Its not as if men would want to be sexualized in every damn possible setting in the world.
Even from gender equality perspective, if women are getting exclusive places, men should as well.
/shrug
your answer sort of clarifies why this is more of a free market issue than anything. Like salads on McDonald's menus, people make a huge fuss because they want "healthy eating", then the product doesn't sell. In this case, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong about a men only gym, there would simply be too few clients to run one effectively. If the market really demanded a men only facility, there would be serious court challenges to any law preventing it. Like, nobody sues men's boarding homes for discrimination (sure, they have issues with funding), but the need for such facilities tends to justify discriminating against the other gender.
The question might be phrased as a "why is it ok to discriminate against the men who might want to use the gym", which can easily be answered by the access they have to other gym facilities and the lack of any reason that men might feel uncomfortable working out in front of women (like you said, real men love attention from women). I obviously don't agree with your position on what makes a man, but certainly, using your own argument, you have done nothing but show why there is no need to discriminate against women who want to use the gym in the same way there is a reason to discriminate against the men. Sure, you might disagree that women's desire to not be sexualized is not sufficient reason to discriminate, but at least there is some reason.
It seems like you are looking at this issue as: "why can't I discriminate against women for no reason? Why can't I restrict access to certain facilities just for the sake of it?" Which is preposterous. Women don't have the carte blanche right to restrict the access of men to places, there needs to be some justification. Being upset that women get to have gyms where they can work out without male eyes is little more than petty or spiteful. You said yourself, you don't even want a male only gym, you are just being immature about some abstract feeling of being wronged with no material consequence.
and no, your definition of "gender equality" would seem to suggest Tampax is discriminating against you for not making male tampons.
Originally posted by Oliver North
/shrugyour answer sort of clarifies why this is more of a free market issue than anything. Like salads on McDonald's menus, people make a huge fuss because they want "healthy eating", then the product doesn't sell. In this case, I don't think there is anything particularly wrong about a men only gym, there would simply be too few clients to run one effectively. If the market really demanded a men only facility, there would be serious court challenges to any law preventing it. Like, nobody sues men's boarding homes for discrimination (sure, they have issues with funding), but the need for such facilities tends to justify discriminating against the other gender.
The question might be phrased as a "why is it ok to discriminate against the men who might want to use the gym", which can easily be answered by the access they have to other gym facilities and the lack of any reason that men might feel uncomfortable working out in front of women (like you said, real men love attention from women). I obviously don't agree with your position on what makes a man, but certainly, using your own argument, you have done nothing but show why there is no need to discriminate against women who want to use the gym in the same way there is a reason to discriminate against the men. Sure, you might disagree that women's desire to not be sexualized is not sufficient reason to discriminate, but at least there is some reason.
It seems like you are looking at this issue as: "why can't I discriminate against women for no reason? Why can't I restrict access to certain facilities just for the sake of it?" Which is preposterous. Women don't have the carte blanche right to restrict the access of men to places, there needs to be some justification. Being upset that women get to have gyms where they can work out without male eyes is little more than petty or spiteful. You said yourself, you don't even want a male only gym, you are just being immature about some abstract feeling of being wronged with no material consequence.
and no, your definition of "gender equality" would seem to suggest Tampax is discriminating against you for not making male tampons.
History reveals that "men-exclusive" places have flourished in the past, and they still can (e.g. "men-exclusive" golf clubs and even "men-exclusive" gyms in some nations). So why should we assume that "men-exclusive" places would falter in current times?
Realistic possibility is that some men may still want to go to gyms which are "men-exclusive," if they are available. This has nothing to do with them not craving women attention but availing an option based on various psychological preferences of their own. Men have their own reasons for wanting exclusive places such as feeling more comfortable in expressing themselves then they would in presence of women or be able to do stuff/activities that they may not do in presence of women. Not recognizing these reasons as valid enough is another thing.
I wouldn't mind working out in a gym which is gender neutral but I still may prefer to join a "men-exclusive gym" if it is available.
You need to realize the fact that the society in which you live is being brain-washed or forced to accept feminist logic in all walks of life. You don't have to defend feminist logic in every possible discussion. Law based argument is not going to convince me either. Yes, I accept the fact that it might be impossible to open "men-exclusive" gym in your society because of law based hurdles, but this has nothing to do with my stand on this matter.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Whites, especially in the west, but to some degree everywhere, have advantages due to 500 years of imperialism and the hegemonic white supremacist culture that resulted from it and influences a lot of things globally.
I always wondered about this.