The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
GS
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:55 am
Title: Ganon's Bane
First Joined: 02 Feb 1922

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby GS » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:45 am

I am still searching for the answer of how putting that someone named Frederick was beaten or that slaves picked oranges in a math word problem makes that a cross-curricular activity.
I don't want to do things. I want to not do things.

User avatar
Taalcon
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 pm
Title: Prodigal Son
Location: Cumming, GA
Contact:

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Taalcon » Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:44 pm

Turning math into something as it would have been applied in the world and culture they were specifically studying right then, recalling Frederick Douglass, etc. I'm sure if the Social Studies course was Space Flight at that time, they'd have math questions about the length of a Shuttle's wings, or the distance Sputnik flew, or something.

I think the concept is a good one (show math practical and tied into what is also being learned), but the implementation was unfortunate. I don't think there was anything sinister or inherently racist going on.

GS
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:55 am
Title: Ganon's Bane
First Joined: 02 Feb 1922

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby GS » Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:28 pm

Turning math into something as it would have been applied in the world and culture they were specifically studying right then.
I understand what they were trying to do. But I don't understand how putting Frederick in the question (It doesn't even say Frederick Douglass) or saying slaves picked oranges does it. The orange/apple/any fruit is a cookie cutter question. Where they inserted slaves into one of the variables. I guess they were at least "trying" with the other question because I am fairly certain there are no standard math questions that involve beatings.
I'm sure if the Social Studies course was Space Flight at that time, they'd have math questions about the length of a Shuttle's wings, or the distance Sputnik flew, or something.
Now we are getting somewhere with a question about the distance Sputnik traveled. Something specific that actually happened in the world that math can be applied to. A question that math needs to be applied to that leads to a mathematical answer and Social Studies knowledge. That is what I call a cross-curricular question. I agree that I don't think that there was anything sinister, but I also don't think that they were really trying to be cross-curricular either.
Last edited by GS on Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't want to do things. I want to not do things.

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Rei » Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:07 pm

That really does sound like a poor attempt at interdisciplinary studies. That said, I'm impressed they actually attempted at something which could be interpreted as interdisciplinary, as opposed to what I usually see.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby neo-dragon » Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:33 pm

I am still searching for the answer of how putting that someone named Frederick was beaten or that slaves picked oranges in a math word problem makes that a cross-curricular activity.
That really does sound like a poor attempt at interdisciplinary studies. That said, I'm impressed they actually attempted at something which could be interpreted as interdisciplinary, as opposed to what I usually see.

That's the other thing that's stupid about this. This is a very lazy approach at cross-curricular applications. If I wanted to combine the topics of math and American history as it relates to slavery (disclaimer: I know this is well beyond the 3rd grade level), I would do something like have students plot a graph of African American population by year for the years prior to, and after the end of slavery, analyze trends, and speculate on the causes.

I literally thought of that in the time it took me to relieve myself. Mentioning slaves and beatings in a math problem and calling it interdisciplinary study is actually beyond lazy.
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
- Frank Herbert's 'Dune'

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Rei » Fri Jan 13, 2012 3:05 am

Oh I definitely agree that it's a lazy attempt. But it certainly is better than what I've seen more often, which is having breadth requirements and calling your school interdisciplinary, despite the fact that none of those breadth requirements intermingle in any capacity.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
Janus%TheDoorman
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:05 am
Title: The Original Two-Face
Location: New Jersey

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Janus%TheDoorman » Wed Jan 25, 2012 12:47 am

Eh, I can kinda see it, actually. 3rd grade was a while ago for all of us, but I feel like my social studies curriculum mainly gave the impression that mostly what slaves did was compose negro spirituals and figure out interesting new ways to cook parts of pigs. At the same time, math problems, even word problems seemed largely arbitrarily constructed puzzles where you didn't have to think much about the context of the numbers, just figure out what parts of the description were relevant and which weren't.

Applying math to slavery makes the idea seem more real to me. The "beatings" question for example. We're all aware that slaves were regularly whipped, but when we think about it, we imagine something like the scenes from Glory or Roots where beatings are dramatic but somewhat infrequent. When you start looking at the numbers, though, and thinking about two beatings a day, or even if it had suggested two a week, and then extending that to weeks and months, and years. That simple question communicates the inescapable despair of slavery much better than just saying most slaves lived and died as slaves, or that the practice went on for centuries. Abstractly, especially to 3rd graders, those concepts are hard to visualize, but imagining day after day abuse is much easier.

Similarly, it makes it immediately clear that numbers matter. How many people do you know that have graduated high school, and presumably know at least some algebra, but routinely fail to consider using math to think about their situation? How many people have difficulty balancing a checkbook or keeping a time schedule? Let alone making deals or negotiating anything related to their careers. When I was a kid I first understood the power of exponentials when someone pointed out that if you get offered a $1000 a day every day for a month, or $1 on the 1st, $2 on the 2nd, $4 on the 3rd, $8 on the 4th, etc., you'd damn well better take the second option. Most people rely on instinct to tell them how to feel about situations they find themselves in, even when math would tell them to feel quite differently about it. If someone told a kid slaves were beat twice a day, to try and understand that, they'd imagine living through one day and getting beat twice, conclude it was survivable and feel bad but not terrible about the idea. It's only math that can help communicate that their feelings can mislead them, and encourage using it even in every day situations.

The NAACP and parents reacted the way they did because, well they're the NAACP and will grab anything even tangentially related to race as a chance to remind everyone they still exist, and parents because they're hyper aware of how people think about their children, and even reminding everyone that black people were once the lowest class of people in society could somehow potentially reflect badly on their children, and so they never want it to happen, even if that's the only way to make the hardships slaves went through and the sacrifices they made mean anything.
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
-Alan Watts

User avatar
neo-dragon
Commander
Commander
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
Title: Huey Revolutionary
Location: Canada

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby neo-dragon » Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:37 pm

Sexy interracial poster sparks furor in South Africa

I think I've already mentioned how I hate to see people condemn interracial relationships. Part of it is the biologist in me. The more we shuffle the genetic deck the better for our species!
"Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic."
- Frank Herbert's 'Dune'

LilBee91
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2081
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:43 pm
Title: AK Hermione
First Joined: 10 Jan 2005

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby LilBee91 » Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:15 am

Dutch Cabinet moves toward burqa ban

You know, I'm as much against the subjugation of women as the next guy, but this just doesn't sit right with me.
I used to hate gravity because it would not let me fly. Now I realize it is gravity that lets me stand.

Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.

Jayelle
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4027
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:32 pm
Title: Queen Ducky
First Joined: 25 Feb 2002
Location: The Far East (of Canada)

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Jayelle » Sat Jan 28, 2012 5:01 pm

Continuing this debate from the Girly Thread.
. Bootyshaking does not need to be amended to an accepted masculine form of excercise, as bootyshaking specifically fits the contours of the female body.
So by that definition of "who should do something", we should restrict any bootyshaking to those races (I.E. Black and Hispanic) who are known for their booties.
One Duck to rule them all.
--------------------------------
It needs to be about 20% cooler.

CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby CezeN » Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:33 pm

Continuing this debate from the Girly Thread.
. Bootyshaking does not need to be amended to an accepted masculine form of excercise, as bootyshaking specifically fits the contours of the female body.
So by that definition of "who should do something", we should restrict any bootyshaking to those races (I.E. Black and Hispanic) who are known for their booties.
No, because being "known" for a booty doesn't mean those are the only races that have booties...Do you think there aren't any girls in any other races that do? Specifically, in general, females have curvier bodies than men. Nonetheless, you should restrict it to the type of people that has curves and benefit from showing them off through those specific movements on the dance floor, walking, ect. I.e. women. If you want to argue that some races have curvier bodies than others, and therefore according to your misinterpretation of my logic only they should be allowed to swirl their hips around, then you're missing my point.

It's no different from dresses and other's women clothes being designed to fit and accentuate the curves of the female body. Do you think men should wear dresses for social equalities sake? Men and women don't have the same bodies.
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image

Gravity Defier
Commander
Commander
Posts: 8017
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:32 pm
Title: Ewok in Tauntaun-land

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Gravity Defier » Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:45 pm

Nonetheless, you should restrict it to the type of people that has curves and benefit from showing them off through those specific movements on the dance floor
So...


Image

Image

are more acceptably able to do something like Zumba because of their femaleness while someone like this

Image

shouldn't, not because they can't dance, not because they are physically incapable, but...because they were born with penises and dancing is a vagina only skill?

Or are you going to not only restrict males but females who don't fit into you idea of attractive, too?
Se paciente y duro; algún día este dolor te será útil.

CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby CezeN » Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:57 pm

Nonetheless, you should restrict it to the type of people that has curves and benefit from showing them off through those specific movements on the dance floor
So...


Image

Image

are more acceptably able to do something like Zumba because of their femaleness while someone like this

Image

shouldn't, not because they can't dance, not because they are physically incapable, but...because they were born with penises and dancing is a vagina only skill?

Or are you going to not only restrict males but females who don't fit into you idea of attractive, too?
Is booty shaking the only form of dance their is? Please explain where I said "dancing is a vagina only skill"? I'm pretty sure there's a ton of general dances, and aerobic classes, that don't focus so much on common hip swirling and booty shaking.

Yes, your bullshit outliers that don't clearly describe the general attributes of women - and therefore aren't who are obviously in mind when I'm talking general female anatomy and the movements they use to attract men - are more appropriate for Zumba.

Please address my dress comment in your next post. So
Image

should be wearing this
Image

despite the fact the dress was made to fit the hourglass curves of the female body?
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image

Gravity Defier
Commander
Commander
Posts: 8017
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:32 pm
Title: Ewok in Tauntaun-land

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Gravity Defier » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:05 pm

your bullshit outliers that don't clearly describe the general attributes of women
Well...considering 60+% of the US is currently overweight or obese, one of those images wasn't all that much of an outlier, if you can call 33% of the population that at all. I'm sure underweight people exist in larger numbers than you might assume, too.


Anyhow, I really don't give a rat's ass if that man wants to wear that dress but I would hope if he were serious, he'd pick one that is more flattering for his figure. Between the two of us, the only one who has a problem with that is you. I mean, honestly, there are many women who wouldn't look good in that.
Se paciente y duro; algún día este dolor te será útil.

CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby CezeN » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:22 pm

your bullshit outliers that don't clearly describe the general attributes of women
Well...considering 60+% of the US is currently overweight or obese, one of those images wasn't all that much of an outlier, if you can call 33% of the population that at all. I'm sure underweight people exist in larger numbers than you might assume, too.


Anyhow, I really don't give a rat's ass if that man wants to wear that dress but I would hope if he were serious, he'd pick one that is more flattering for his figure. Between the two of us, the only one who has a problem with that is you. I mean, honestly, there are many women who wouldn't look good in that.
Thanks for the knowledge. Though, you realize that being overweight or fatter makes for more curves and jiggling? Rhetorical question.

Hmmm, I don't think I asked if you care if that man wants to wear that dress. I'm pretty sure I asked if you think that man "should be wearing" that dress. Which is a question focused on your opinion, not his. And that question was more generalized to men in general wearing dresses.

Nonetheless, you said that if he was serious, he should pick one that is more flattering to for his figure? In other words, he should pick one that that goes with his body? Lol I like how even while shrugging and faking indifference, you're still proving my point.

Which is that dresses in general don't flatter the male body. The specific dress is irrelevant, though you'd like me to believe you're saying "Well...um sure...just not that dress." And you just basically implied that you believe flattering your figure is socially important. Which dresses in general aren't meant to do for men.

EDIT: So yeah, I think I'm done here. Though, I'll respond to Jayelle if she chooses to continue. Maybe. :wave:
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image

Gravity Defier
Commander
Commander
Posts: 8017
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:32 pm
Title: Ewok in Tauntaun-land

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Gravity Defier » Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:31 pm

Honey, I'll speak slowly for you so you can follow: "should" is a social thing; so yes, I think men should be able to wear a dress if that's what they want, if that's who they feel they are and can express themselves in that way. Men wore dresses in the past, men still wear kilts now (kilts = Scottish skirts! Skirts are the bottom half of a dress!), and men might ever wear dresses again.

While I don't think it should be anyone's whole life to try to be attractive, I think there's a certain level of trying to look your best that corresponds to a healthy self-esteem. So, yeah. If he wants to wear a dress, hopefully he'll pick one that emphasizes his favorite body parts and downplays the ones he likes less. Just like a woman would do.

Which is something you also missed. That dress, in your image, would NOT look like that on small breasted women or stick thin women or really curvy women. It flatters a certain body type. That doesn't mean NO women should wear it, it just means you accept you won't look like that and wear it or don't.

Seriously. Actually learn something at school for once. Or in general.
Se paciente y duro; algún día este dolor te será útil.

User avatar
Luet
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4511
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:49 pm
Title: Bird Nerd
First Joined: 01 Jul 2000
Location: Albany, NY

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Luet » Sun Jan 29, 2012 8:53 am

despite the fact the dress was made to fit the hourglass curves of the female body?
You are insulting quite a lot of women, there, including me. I have the opposite of an hourglass figure. I am thin but I have a thick waist and next to no hips or butt. I know lots of men who have a more pronounced "booty" than me. I'm actually guessing that you probably do. Does that mean that I shouldn't take a Zumba class because I would look ridiculous? Who cares what anatomical features you have?!? If you enjoy doing something, then do it. If you don't, then don't. But why all this arguing to convince us about who should and shouldn't do particular things. I don't get it.
"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer." - Albert Camus in Return to Tipasa

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Rei » Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:49 am

Hmmm, I don't think I asked if you care if that man wants to wear that dress. I'm pretty sure I asked if you think that man "should be wearing" that dress. Which is a question focused on your opinion, not his. And that question was more generalized to men in general wearing dresses.

Nonetheless, you said that if he was serious, he should pick one that is more flattering to for his figure? In other words, he should pick one that that goes with his body? Lol I like how even while shrugging and faking indifference, you're still proving my point.

Which is that dresses in general don't flatter the male body. The specific dress is irrelevant, though you'd like me to believe you're saying "Well...um sure...just not that dress." And you just basically implied that you believe flattering your figure is socially important. Which dresses in general aren't meant to do for men.

EDIT: So yeah, I think I'm done here. Though, I'll respond to Jayelle if she chooses to continue. Maybe. :wave:
I'd just like to say that when I pick the right cut, I can rock a dress as well as a pair of trousers with the best of them.

You are asking if a man should wear a dress. Should a woman wear trousers? If anyone wants to wear anything that does not pose a safety threat to anyone else (I'm hard pressed to imagine something, but I'm sure it could be managed), why is it our part to tell them that they are not allowed to do so, that they are wrong to do so? I reiterate my comment elsewhere that it is not until men can be associated with feminine things (like feminine occupations, clothing, personality traits, exercise, entertainments, etc.) without being looked down on that women will be equal to men in our society. As long as it is acceptable to be told "you're such a girl" or that "you punch like a girl" or such statements that are pejorative solely because they make one feminine, we cling to the right to oppress people based upon an innate physical trait and equality escapes us.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
Luet
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 4511
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:49 pm
Title: Bird Nerd
First Joined: 01 Jul 2000
Location: Albany, NY

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Luet » Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:22 am

As long as it is acceptable to be told "you're such a girl" or that "you punch like a girl" or such statements that are pejorative
Add to that such pejoratives as "pussy" and "douche" (as cezen so nicely demonstrated in the Dear Body thread).
"In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer." - Albert Camus in Return to Tipasa

User avatar
Janus%TheDoorman
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:05 am
Title: The Original Two-Face
Location: New Jersey

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Janus%TheDoorman » Sun Jan 29, 2012 12:02 pm

You guys seem to be arguing over what the word "should" means.

CezeN seems to be arguing that it means that there is a particular, objective valuation of prospects based on... well, honestly I'm not sure what exactly it's based on, but whatever it is, it seems to have specific things to say about men and women and their uses of booty and dresses.

GD appears arguing that "should" is an entirely social construct which represents only the opinions of those concerned, and therefore whether it's booty shaking or dress-wearing, people "should" do whatever they want because that's precisely what "should" means. However, she also acknowledges that aesthetics, at least in the case of male dress wearing, weigh in on the consideration, which seems to contradict the idea that "should" is a purely social thing since it implies there are specific, non-opinion derived ways to "emphasize his favorite body parts and downplays the one he likes best."

CezeN seems to be arguing that in the case of a man, in which he assumes general, universal goals of self-esteem, social acceptance, etc. is not optimally pursuing those goals by wearing a dress. GD is arguing that those goals are entirely dependent on social opinion which she assumes to be fully flexible and therefore wearing a dress, or just about any other action should be equally as accepted since it allows the most paths to self-esteem, social acceptance, etc.

I think CezeN is being overzealous in assuming that the instrumental value of a man wearing a dress in pursuing general day-to-day goals is strictly sub-optimal, that THE definition of "should" always and forever precludes that course of action. However, I also think GD is being overzealous in assuming social constructs are completely flexible and any and all paths to our goals which are obstructed currently by social convention would work equally as well as those that aren't if the social conventions were removed. For example, booty-shaking as exercise. If a someone's stated goals are losing weight, increasing aerobic capacity, etc., a woman might find that booty-shaking is a near-optimal exercise for her physiology, (I doubt this, but stay with me) and a man might find that it's far from that for him, again based solely on physiology. Social constructs against men engaging in booty-shaking might then be expected to pop up since, in the long run, someone engaging in sub-optimal exercise is going to be more of a drain on society's (and more locally, their family and friends') resources than someone who isn't.

Now, in the case of dress-wearing, if you'd spent years supporting and working with a man on a project, at work say, and when it came time to pitch the project and its results, he showed up in even a badly cut suit, let alone in a dress designed for a woman, you'd have reason to be angry. Our aesthetic sensibilities and their influence on our opinions are largely baked into us. We can counteract these with conscious effort, but that doesn't mean our opinions on these matter are, or should be, completely flexible. If it were just a man in his home, by himself, then... whatever. We already have strong social conventions AGAINST concerning ourselves with what people do in their private lives.

Now, if people started cutting dresses to accentuate and show off the features of a man we find attractive, or for any more practical reason, I don't think we'd have much of a problem with it. The don't seem to have a problem with it in Saudi Arabia where clothes other than what's basically a dress are intolerably hot to wear.

TL;DR: GD and others are right that social convention shouldn't exist in situations where no one except the decision maker are meaningfully affected, but wrong in thinking social pressures and ideas about what "should" be exist for no reason. Cezen is right that actual, objective connection between choice and goals is the ethically sound definition of "should", but wrong in assuming that social convention has steered us to optimal paths to those goals.

Sorry if I've mischaracterized anyone's position.
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
-Alan Watts

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Rei » Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:04 pm

I'm sorry, I think you are wrong. It isn't just a discussion about the meaning of the word "should" although that may play into it. It's a discussion about equality between men and women and the prejudices that are faced and reinforced Every. Single. Day. in our society. In our workplaces. In our schools. Often even in our homes.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

Gravity Defier
Commander
Commander
Posts: 8017
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:32 pm
Title: Ewok in Tauntaun-land

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Gravity Defier » Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:16 pm

What Rei said. Sorry if I'm not coming across clearly or giving the best examples or coming across as overzealous or whatever. But to me, Cezen's opinion on men doing feminine things is as stupid as saying black men have smaller brains than white men, because that's what was believed for a very, very long time, so they shouldn't get to go to college; that should be reserved for people who are capable of demonstrating their thinking skills best and that is rich, white men.

He keeps bringing up men wearing a dress to work and people being upset about that. Well, I don't know women who would wear that sort of dress to work outside of the movie or modeling industry, so it would get some weird looks for females, too. I'm not trying to say let's throw all social rules and norms out the window. I'm saying it wouldn't harm society to learn to see a man in a dress or heaven forbid doing Zumba as not only non-threatening to his masculinity (or theirs, which I think is the larger issue...their own insecurity) but also as such an average thing that no one would think to see it as something worth noticing.
Se paciente y duro; algún día este dolor te será útil.

User avatar
Janus%TheDoorman
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:05 am
Title: The Original Two-Face
Location: New Jersey

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Janus%TheDoorman » Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:07 pm

I'm sorry, I think you are wrong. It isn't just a discussion about the meaning of the word "should" although that may play into it. It's a discussion about equality between men and women and the prejudices that are faced and reinforced Every. Single. Day. in our society. In our workplaces. In our schools. Often even in our homes.
Men and women aren't equivalent, though. Equal in a status-in-society sense, sure, but ceteris paribus, somebody's race has very little impact on any situation absent social convention. Not terribly more than changing, say, eye-color. A person's sex, however, has real impact on their psychology, physiology, and by virtue of that, on their goals and the usefulness of an instrumental pursuit in achieving that goal. We can pretend those differences don't exist and go to bra-burning feminism or something else as pointless. Yes, some, even perhaps many social conventions are silly and unfounded, but not all of them, and if we insist on ignoring that fact, we'll throw the baby out with the bath water.

I deal with anxiety over my work, schooling, etc. and think it's annoying that probably many other men don't even consider anti-anxiety methods to deal with their day-to-day because socially men are just taught not to think of themselves an anxious. Instead we're supposed to struggle with our challenges and fight through pain and suffering without even considering that maybe trying to reduce the pain and suffering might work since we're no longer pre-industrialists with no understanding of our psyche, but that idea doesn't occur to most men because admitting that something makes you anxious is unmanly.

However, I'd be lying if I said that pride and a drive for status, domination and power weren't major motivators for me which I expect are absent in most women. A society that recognizes and praises those qualities is an easier place for me, and I'm betting more men than would easily admit it publicly, to live.

I think society is gradually moving to a place, though, where we're able to recognize and appreciate the fact that there are many paths to the same goal, and that what's true for some may not be true for others. As understanding becomes more widespread, I'm hoping social convention will be predicated on success and ability only (As much for emotional and spiritual "success" as material success), but in complex pursuits where reinforcement and praise are useful when actual reward may be several steps away, it's hard to say we should celebrate all paths and still expect to succeed if we aren't giving preference to the paths we expect more often to lead to success.

Gender stereotypes may be an ugly tool, but as long as the preferable options for men are different from the preferable options for women, they will remain useful. I cannot honestly offer the same level of support and endorsement to a man who, even in a social setting, say a party or a dance, chooses to wear a dress (even a male-designed dress) instead of a suit. Similarly, I would not offer praise to a woman who grew a beard, even though that would be a perfectly valid option for a man. Run that through human social interactions, and it becomes "Clean shaven is a valid option for both sexes and is therefore gender neutral, but as beards are only accessible to men, beards are manly, and definitely not womanly.")

Similarly, because women don't often have the same emotional architecture for status and competition, I would not offer praise to a woman who believed she would make it through school or work depending solely on those drives to sustain her motivation. Run that through social filters, and it becomes "Competition and fighting are manly, but not womanly." Now, as we understand more about our psyche, we're learning that women can be just as competitive as men, and so that social convention is changing.

Now this does often get out of hand, and something that is discovered to work well for one sex is immediately assumed to be correlated to all the things that don't work well for the other sex, and so, say a man who shares his feelings is assumed to also have little domination drive. This just doesn't hold up logically to often for it to be useful to believe, but they persist because they're useful socially to attack people we don't like.
What Rei said. Sorry if I'm not coming across clearly or giving the best examples or coming across as overzealous or whatever. But to me, Cezen's opinion on men doing feminine things is as stupid as saying black men have smaller brains than white men, because that's what was believed for a very, very long time, so they shouldn't get to go to college; that should be reserved for people who are capable of demonstrating their thinking skills best and that is rich, white men.

He keeps bringing up men wearing a dress to work and people being upset about that. Well, I don't know women who would wear that sort of dress to work outside of the movie or modeling industry, so it would get some weird looks for females, too. I'm not trying to say let's throw all social rules and norms out the window. I'm saying it wouldn't harm society to learn to see a man in a dress or heaven forbid doing Zumba as not only non-threatening to his masculinity (or theirs, which I think is the larger issue...their own insecurity) but also as such an average thing that no one would think to see it as something worth noticing.
The idea that "black men have smaller brains than white men" is only stupid because it turns out not to be true. If we lived in a world where a class of people where generally stupider than the rest of us, we'd have a perfectly useful social convention against, say, giving your money to them for schooling when there's someone else not of the stupid class available. In fact, we do have such heuristics. We don't often lend money to drug addicts or the homeless because we assume they're not going to do anything useful with it (We often lend money to signal that we're kind people, or because we've heard stories about how people down on their luck can often do just as well as a random person with the gift, but the latter is still predicated on the idea that we're not just throwing away money that we spent our time and effort to gain).

The important part is not that it's a dress, the important part is that it's a VERY sub-optimal use of resources, and we signal gender-dependent expected return through social convention. "A dress that's been specifically cut to be attractive for a man and actually pulls it off" would likely NOT be considered feminine if such a thing existed. Similarly, aerobics exercises which utilize the physiology of a man efficiently aren't considered feminine. Zumba (I'm assuming here as a propositional) or any other exercise which utilizes a female body significantly better than a male body, should rightly be considered feminine, and we should disapprove of men doing it because while society as a whole might not suffer from a single man making that mistake, if it were treated as equally valid to a more efficient exercise routine, we'd be burning up time and energy unnecessarily.

To put it in more graphic terms, imagine Zumba is suddenly hugely accepted among men, and tons of Zumba studios start popping up across the country. If Zumba is less efficient for men than say, an exercise bike, in terms of how long it takes exercising one way to reach the same goal, then each studio and each man at that studio uses more energy supporting his exercise routine, which takes longer, say 6 months instead of 4. Now locally that means he's paying an extra two months for lessons which means that's money and time he isn't spending on/with his family and friends, investing, saving for retirement or college, etc. Globally, it means there's an increase in demand for energy, building materials, etc. Now one man on his own doesn't make a difference, but add up those months of energy use that wouldn't have been used supporting Zumbaing men, and you make a blip on the market of energy prices, more demand relative to efficient use means higher prices. Means higher prices for everything that we make, including, say, food. Which means that without a corresponding budget increase which still means more time/energy/money all used for the sake of supporting inefficiencies, food aid programs can't deliver as much, and on the margin, someone starves to death who wouldn't have if we weren't using the energy needlessly on inefficient exercise programs.

So yes, I do contend that if Zumba turns out to be an inefficient use of resources for men and men only, then society does suffer for the cause of men Zumbaing.
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
-Alan Watts

User avatar
Janus%TheDoorman
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:05 am
Title: The Original Two-Face
Location: New Jersey

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Janus%TheDoorman » Sun Jan 29, 2012 4:33 pm

As an example analogous to the "dress designed for a man", messenger bags were briefly stigmatized as being too similar to purses, but since many men have to carry laptops frequently enough to want their hands free even with them, they've become a widely accepted alternative to a briefcase.
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
-Alan Watts

Gravity Defier
Commander
Commander
Posts: 8017
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:32 pm
Title: Ewok in Tauntaun-land

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Gravity Defier » Sun Jan 29, 2012 7:03 pm

the important part is that it's a VERY sub-optimal use of resources, and we signal gender-dependent expected return through social convention. "A dress that's been specifically cut to be attractive for a man and actually pulls it off" would likely NOT be considered feminine if such a thing existed. Similarly, aerobics exercises which utilize the physiology of a man efficiently aren't considered feminine. Zumba (I'm assuming here as a propositional) or any other exercise which utilizes a female body significantly better than a male body, should rightly be considered feminine, and we should disapprove of men doing it because while society as a whole might not suffer from a single man making that mistake, if it were treated as equally valid to a more efficient exercise routine, we'd be burning up time and energy unnecessarily.
First, I can't believe you're using resources as an argument against something like a man wearing a dress. I just paid half of what a dress cost me in alteration costs so that it would be an attractive cut on me, so I could pull it off, and I'm a woman, who it's supposedly made to flatter, I guess naturally. Because if it doesn't fit all people of a certain sex, it must not work on any. Likewise, if it works with one, it must work with all. Only, I think not. I have no doubt, Rei for instance, can find dresses that don't require much alteration, if any, to look good on him that would look terrible on me and vice versa.

As for Zumba being a poor return on energy put in, I don't know that the physiological differences are more than negligible and I don't see why it matters. If a guy wants some good cardio or fun or to hang out with female friends who do it, who cares what he's getting out of it? People exercise for different reasons and stick with them for different reasons. Zumba, by the way, was "created" by a man, is still done by many men, and is in my humble opinion a good workout for many people, regardless of what's between their legs.

Seriously, by Cezen's logic, so long as it was an overweight or obese man, he'd be more acceptably able to do Zumba because he is curvy. Your logic isn't striking me as too much better.
Se paciente y duro; algún día este dolor te será útil.

User avatar
Janus%TheDoorman
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 563
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 8:05 am
Title: The Original Two-Face
Location: New Jersey

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Janus%TheDoorman » Sun Jan 29, 2012 10:11 pm

Sure, if it turns out that Zumba is actually "good cardio" in that it's as useful to the goal of burning excess energy as more conventionally "manly" exercise routines, and comes with the added perk of fun and hanging out with friends, then it's fine and shouldn't be stigmatized.

CezeN's logic that curves (though I think he only contended that the curves of the female body were better suited to Zumba) equal efficient Zumba workout might not be sound. But if it is, if Zumba's efficiency does depend on, say, burning more energy because you have to control the movement of fat stores which burns more energy than controlling muscle mass, then yes fat people should be more acceptably able to do Zumba. Just like fat people or people with knee injuries are more acceptably able to use ellipticals than treadmills to avoid injury at the cost of inefficient use of time.

Inefficiencies matter. "Resources" aren't just things like coal, gas, etc. inefficiencies also needlessly use up the time and energy of those closest to us. Are your best friends the ones that cut into time you'd rather be reading, chatting for fun, or whatever else you'd like to do because they insist on working out their problems by telling you about them instead of more efficient methods like dealing with them on their own? If your friend is on a crappy exercise program and talks your ear off about how they're not getting the results they want, wouldn't you rather they just switched over to the program you know would work better?

More than that, our emotions are tied directly into resource management. We get angry when someone denies us something we want or imposes costs on us we don't deserve. We get sad when we're denied something and there's not much we can do about it. We get happy when we get what we want. Jealous when someone has something we want. Inefficiency is what opens the door to festering anger and hatred. And emotions are pretty damned hard to fool. You might convince yourself you don't judge people based on gender stereotypes, but I'll bet you can't stand when someone's not doing what you think is the "smart", "educated", "classy", "tasteful", "respectful" thing to do or whatever other virtues you endorse, and get sometimes rightfully, sometimes wrongly angry about departures from these behaviors. Next time you feel something strong, I'll bet you anything it's because someone used a resource - time, energy, access to influential people, money, either for or against you.
"But at any rate, the point is that God is what nobody admits to being, and everybody really is."
-Alan Watts

CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby CezeN » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:06 am

despite the fact the dress was made to fit the hourglass curves of the female body?
You are insulting quite a lot of women, there, including me. I have the opposite of an hourglass figure. I am thin but I have a thick waist and next to no hips or butt. I know lots of men who have a more pronounced "booty" than me. I'm actually guessing that you probably do. Does that mean that I shouldn't take a Zumba class because I would look ridiculous? Who cares what anatomical features you have?!? If you enjoy doing something, then do it. If you don't, then don't. But why all this arguing to convince us about who should and shouldn't do particular things. I don't get it.
My mistake, but I specifically said "hourglass" because that described the shape of the women in the picture.

I'm sure they make dresses that fit the various female body types.

Regardless, are you denying that you have curves? Being able to shake your booty actually has a lot to do with the curvature of your body despite the size of your booty. How you rotate your hips and twirl your waist. You probably wouldn't look as bad as you claim if you learned the actual movement in Zumba.

Btw- Most of my posts are me responding to people...('-' ) I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image

CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby CezeN » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:22 am

Hmmm, I don't think I asked if you care if that man wants to wear that dress. I'm pretty sure I asked if you think that man "should be wearing" that dress. Which is a question focused on your opinion, not his. And that question was more generalized to men in general wearing dresses.

Nonetheless, you said that if he was serious, he should pick one that is more flattering to for his figure? In other words, he should pick one that that goes with his body? Lol I like how even while shrugging and faking indifference, you're still proving my point.

Which is that dresses in general don't flatter the male body. The specific dress is irrelevant, though you'd like me to believe you're saying "Well...um sure...just not that dress." And you just basically implied that you believe flattering your figure is socially important. Which dresses in general aren't meant to do for men.

EDIT: So yeah, I think I'm done here. Though, I'll respond to Jayelle if she chooses to continue. Maybe. :wave:
I'd just like to say that when I pick the right cut, I can rock a dress as well as a pair of trousers with the best of them.

You are asking if a man should wear a dress. Should a woman wear trousers? If anyone wants to wear anything that does not pose a safety threat to anyone else (I'm hard pressed to imagine something, but I'm sure it could be managed), why is it our part to tell them that they are not allowed to do so, that they are wrong to do so? I reiterate my comment elsewhere that it is not until men can be associated with feminine things (like feminine occupations, clothing, personality traits, exercise, entertainments, etc.) without being looked down on that women will be equal to men in our society. As long as it is acceptable to be told "you're such a girl" or that "you punch like a girl" or such statements that are pejorative solely because they make one feminine, we cling to the right to oppress people based upon an innate physical trait and equality escapes us.
Yes, because they make womans' trousers. Right? Trousers tailored to girls. Pants tailored to women. They don't make male dresses, as far as I know.

This isn't a case of "Men should wear pants, women should wear dresses". This is a case that the clothes industry makes trousers with women's bodies in mind as well as men, but doesn't make dresses specifically for the male body - for the most part. A man wearing a dress is as ridiculous and pointless as a person wearing clothes that don't fit or adults wearing children's clothes.

My point is that appearance is important in your everyday life. You're not going to go to work dressed as a hobo simply because it doesn't pose a safety risk. If your friends don't tell you that you shouldn't, they are bad friends who don't know that personal opinions on social issues as fundamental as wearing clothes that fit your gender don't matter when your career, your future, ect. relies on the opinions of others.

Furthermore, like I said in the other thread, our bodies are not equal at the end of the day. I understand your argument about what's needed in our strive for equality, I just don't think it's applicable when it comes to issues of the differences between a male body and a females'.
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image

CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby CezeN » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:29 am

As long as it is acceptable to be told "you're such a girl" or that "you punch like a girl" or such statements that are pejorative
Add to that such pejoratives as "pussy" and "douche" (as cezen so nicely demonstrated in the Dear Body thread).
:hatsoff:

Though, I think "douche" has less to do with gender, and more to do with the raw disgustingness/grossness? associated with the product. So, I wouldn't necessarily add douche under my definition.
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image

CezeN
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:24 pm
Title: will not be ignored

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby CezeN » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:42 am

TL;DR: GD and others are right that social convention shouldn't exist in situations where no one except the decision maker are meaningfully affected, but wrong in thinking social pressures and ideas about what "should" be exist for no reason. Cezen is right that actual, objective connection between choice and goals is the ethically sound definition of "should", but wrong in assuming that social convention has steered us to optimal paths to those goals.

Sorry if I've mischaracterized anyone's position.
Eh, I'm not saying that social conventions have led us to the optimal path, after all I've acknowledged that they change over time. I'm saying that following current social conventions are the current path to your goals, though I guess it depends on how much your career and daily life is influenced by other people. If you're a stockbroker who doesn't even want a spouse, then wear dresses or children's clothes or nothing to your heart's desire.

However, if people are going to affect your goals...whether that's climbing up the company ladder, attracting customers to your store, ect., then you should follow the social norms. If social connections matter then behave as society expects you depending on how large/onesided a norm is, so you can fit in socially.
Gunny and his thoughts on First Earth:
Image

Wife of Bath
Launchie
Launchie
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:55 am

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Wife of Bath » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:59 am

However, I'd be lying if I said that pride and a drive for status, domination and power weren't major motivators for me which I expect are absent in most women.
I beg to differ!
-Alisoun

User avatar
Taalcon
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 625
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:04 pm
Title: Prodigal Son
Location: Cumming, GA
Contact:

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Taalcon » Tue Feb 07, 2012 12:27 pm


User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Rei » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:50 pm

Awesome!
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Syphon the Sun » Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:36 pm

So, I've had time to read the opinion, now. And while I don't think their reasoning is fully consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings on state power issues in general, I think it was much more persuasive to the Supreme Court (which, realistically, will probably hear the case next year) than the lower court's ruling, which had blatantly defied earlier precedent.

That said, I'm not sure this is really a "victory" for gay rights activists. The decision didn't say that rules prohibiting gay marriage are unconstitutional, as they had hoped. Instead, it simply says that if you give same-sex couples all -- or most -- of the rights you give opposite-sex couples, you can't withhold from them the label "marriage." This is exactly the "slippery slope" argument that same-sex marriage opponents have used for fighting civil unions. And the Ninth Circuit decision seems to confirm their fears. I suspect that will mean stronger resistance to the civil union "middle ground" than before, as this decision makes it an all-or-nothing proposition (at least in the Ninth Circuit). Of course, I've long thought that the movement was hurting itself by pursuing their agenda through judicial activism, rather than through legislative changes, because of the blowback it has caused. I think that, ultimately, this will just add to that blowback.

And, of course, I'm not at all confident that this will be upheld on appeal. The Court could easily punt the issue by affirming a small portion of the opinion (e.g., that if a state provides all -- or most -- marriage benefits to same-sex couples, and then provides them with the label "marriage," it may not later rescind that label) that would only really affect California and Hawaii. They could also uphold it in its entirety or reach the same result via another means. But Judge Reinhardt wrote the opinion, and he is the most overturned circuit judge in the nation's history, sitting on the most overturned circuit in the nation's history. You don't win that kind of distinction by chance. If it were me, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
Step softly; a dream lies buried here.

Eaquae Legit
Speaker for the Dead
Speaker for the Dead
Posts: 5185
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:30 pm
Title: Age quod agis
First Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Location: ^ Geez, read the sign.

Re: The Race Relations/Diversity/Equality Thread

Postby Eaquae Legit » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:22 am

Dear America,

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU.

Seriously. This is monstrous. Where are all the angry women? Hell, where are all the angry men who don't want their loved ones referred to as CATTLE?

I'm so mad I'm practically spluttering.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests