chairdriver Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroicjanitor Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Not worldwide... But in the west yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Nobody is equal to anyone else. We should be given equal opportunities, but of course the world isn't fair. Regarding the Man v Woman Equality, I'd say no. But I don't think we could ever really be equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 This equality think is overall very good. However, one thing that is absolutely stupid is that it's highly recommended for companies to have a "balanced" workforce, so some may select someone because "they don't have any non-whites" working for them, or similar, rather than simply "the best person for the job, no matter what colour/race/nationality/gender/sexual preference/whatever". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 The gender pay gap is a load of bollocks. There are many numerous reasons for it. Mainly being that many women choose to look after children rather than concentrating on their career. This can be seen by the fact that even though the "pay gap" is about 17%, the pay gap for men and women under 30 is less than 2% and for men and women over 40 is 27%, showing a connection with lifestyle choices (and the old boys club, but that's as much of a class thing as well and is slowly dying out). There's also the fact that men choose careers that offer more money (with courses such a maths and business etc. being male dominated whereas courses such as english and the arts are female dominated). There's as big of a pay gap between men with wives and children and single men. But that doesn't make good headlines so nobody goes on about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Good thread. Short answer; no. Long answer; equality itself can be applied in varying states of subjectivity. We all exist, so we live as equal lifeforms, but we act and we influence differently. We are affected and altered differently, based on the ol' nature and nurture of it all. As lifeforms, that means we're equal to chavs and disabled people and the birds and amoebas and poison ivy. but they are not our equals in terms of morality or ability. Humanity should strive towards true neutrality, however it would demand that individuals act within a much narrower spectrum of morality, that we all share the same ideals. We do not, and these 'faults' lead to the more interesting elements of society. Not everyone understands art, let alone is able to construct it - yet one individuals talent of storytelling feeds and nurtures a generation of others. My belief is not that we are all equal, but instead that we are complimentary. Combined we can excell and attain the novel and the stun. Ing. If you look at society, there are roles that need to be filled in order for the machine as a whole to work efficiently. Be the cog a sewage worker or a teacher, these are vital to the whole. Yet the pay is different, which accounts for the difference in perception of both roles. Fact is, jobs - which is generally one of the primary definers of human existance (sexuality is still a member of the second set of fiddlers, I'd say) - vary in difficulty. Can you train everyone to be a brain surgeon? Can you train everyone to sing perfectly? Again, referring back to inherited moles of abilities, skills, mannerisms and intellect; no. What we all demand is not equality, but respect. I am a dolescum at the moment - yet I do not wish that to be the sole title that defines me. True equality calls for an unblinkered analysis of how multifaceted any individual's role in society is. Equality demands that people shun initial impressions in favour of experience and understanding. My personal quarrels with society include, amongst many, the obsession with the stereotype. Humanity's exponential growth in non-biological evolution (from sticks and stones to ipods and rockets) also includes the vicarious learning spectrum, which unfortunately means that we by default accumulate entire schemas of understanding from what we are told, shown and taught. The power of the media is impossible to understate, yet also a fraught task is found in elaborating on all the intricacies of how it functions! Such an in-depth topic. It's like a giant game of tangental pick-up-sticks, which only proves how it a defining element of our essential philosophy. There is no science that can answer it, and that, to me, is beautiful. TL;DR Shut up and look down at me. (P.S. didn't watch the vid yet) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mundi Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 These commercials always annoy me, makes it sound like the only reason this inequality exits is because men are men and only have these opportunities because of they are men. It has more to do with gender roles and what is expected of oneself during and after education, males grow up in a more competitive and frankly, expected to do more in their career. All of this is of course changing, but this not something that will take effect in a few years. This is something deeply seated in society and the difference will be seen in different generations of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share Posted March 7, 2011 Long answer A stunning response. I am a dolescum at the moment Was scouring my brain for a reason why I'd never heard/read this latin word before, then I realised what you were saying :p :p (P.S. didn't watch the vid yet) It's good, do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 This equality think is overall very good. However, one thing that is absolutely stupid is that it's highly recommended for companies to have a "balanced" workforce, so some may select someone because "they don't have any non-whites" working for them, or similar, rather than simply "the best person for the job, no matter what colour/race/nationality/gender/sexual preference/whatever". That's called "Affirmative Action". I completely agree. Regardless of if its used in universities or in hiring, it boarders on institutionalized racism in some cases. Its especially bad if laws are passed requiring it in certain circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share Posted March 7, 2011 I believe sexism can't be quelled as long as people view gender as a binary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 I believe sexism can't be quelled as long as people view gender as a binary. Are you saying we should see it as a single entity, or a spectrum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayseven Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Was scouring my brain for a reason why I'd never heard/read this latin word before, then I realised what you were saying :p :p Genuine lol at this! I watched the first 40 seconds and I was immediately reminded of Conservapedia. Take some stats and skew them and ignore the reasons behind the figures. Women lose their jobs due to pregnancy? How many of them chose to 'lose' their jobs? How many of those chose after their maternity leave, realising that they wanted to spend more time raising their child? A "better chance of entering political office" is based on what? Previous numbers? Well then men will have a 'far greater chance' for the new fucking forever, won't they? Less likely to be "judged for promiscuous behaviour"? Precisely the banal and meaningless media nonsense that I totally despise. The sexual assault line was read as if the narrator hoped that men's chances of rape would increase in the future rather than any real insight into whether the 'chances of sexual attack' have at all reduced over the last 10/100/1000 years, and even then the definitions of 'sexual attack' aren't defined. So yeah. Switched off. Too much tutting. The problem with sexual 'inequality' shit is that it sours regular lifestuff. I've actually had women frown at me for holding the door open for them (and the bloke behind them). Rage. Too much stuff to think about. Arg. Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 While I do appreciate what the video tries to do and enjoy the way it's doing it, I can only agree with jayseven that the sentiment comes off as terribly self-righteous. I dislike the fact that the battle for equality often seems more like a battle against each other than a battle against a common enemy. I also very much dislike positive discrimination, especially when people genuinely mistake it for actual equality. Oh, and the concept "gender roles" needs to die a painful death in the deepest, most fiery depths of Hell right now. I'm curious about your views on gender as well, chair. I know you've talked about it before, but I still don't feel I know your true feelings on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 Are you saying we should see it as a single entity, or a spectrum? Spectrum. I mean, biologically, there are 2 sexes [excluding extreme cases of intersex]. But there is a spectrum of gender. If it weren't so awkward to explain what I mean, I'd choose not to describe myself as a man. Nor would I describe myself as a woman. I'd be happy to describe myself as a "guy", because it's word that, as an English speaker, I feel is lexically close to what I am. I'd never ever refer to myself as a bloke. It feels wrong. Sure, I'm biologically similar to, say, Ramar (using him as a relatable example) -- we're both XY -- but really, the way we hold ourselves in society and life is totally different. I would bet that he'd be happy to refer to himself as a bloke. The fact he has a football signature and I don't. Might come down to taste. Might come down to the fact he was brought up in an atmosphere were football was more there. It might be because he has better hand-eye co-ordination, and is therefore better at playing the game, and is a fan by association. Or any other reason. Or, as I believe is the most probable reason, he is of a position in the gender spectrum that's more predisposed to enjoy team-sport than I am. Might seem a strange judgement to make, but I could rule out a whole class of people if I were searching for my soulmate: people who enjoy watching football. For me that's a stronger discriminant (with regards to soulmate searching) than biological sex is, because the chances of finding someone of soulmate material is much lower amongst football fans, because they are more likely to be of a gender that is less likely to be soulmate material. [Although, I'd much prefer to have sex with a male football fan than I would a female non-football fan, but sex and love are subtly different, because sexual desire in most cases relies on an impulse based upon biological gender] Although, having said all that, that's a royally shit example. I just saw Ramar's signature and thought "Why does this repulse me so much?" :p Hope you get a glint of what I'm trying to get across though. It's hard for me to explain myself. All I know is that at 3/4/5/6/7 years old, I was confused as to why I was a boy. It made more sense to wear dresses -- because as a child I recognised the gender binary and that girls wore dresses, and it was intuitive that I should do so too. It was threatening to my nextdoor neighbour, the mother of my friend, who I remember told me to get out her house and go change because I was wearing a dress, and threatening to my parents. It was beaten out of me :/ (Well, beaten gives the wrong impression, since its a very severe word. More like made to cry.) Of course, you might say that's all prepubescent, so doesn't have much bearing on things, and perhaps it doesn't. I haven't really had strong inclinations to do similar since. The point is, I know that if we lived in a world where a gender spectrum was a given, my being would make more sense. It makes no sense to lump me in with the Ramars of the world. For a long time I assumed it was a side-effect of homosexuality. And perhaps it is. But then the link between homosexuality and the feeling of being outside the binary isn't as obvious and clearcut as you might expect. I've talked to a few gay guys who've just looked at me blankly when I've approached the concept of gender spectrum being involved in sexual orientation. Which of course is explained by the fact that if you fall within the binary of the sexes, you have no reason to question it. If you take a step back, the gender diversity within the gay community is actually very apparent. The most blatant being the contrast between the leather "bear" culture and the cosmopolitan pink-wearing gays. I hate to use this example though, since its easy to reductivise into "bears are men, fags are women", which is the antithesis of the idea I'm trying to get across. I find it very interesting to consider the homosex-roles of "top" and "bottom". And how, often, you can just tell, by looking at a gay man. BASICALLY, I wouldn't identify as trans, because I don't feel I'm outside of the binary enough for it to be worth me holding the massive weight of the stigma that a trans identity brings. In an ideal world, there'd be no such thing as trans, because the spectrum would be a given. In some ways that's why I can deal with coming out as gay quite easily, because it feels like the easy part. Explaining to people a complex gender identity is much more difficult, because it's harder to concretise (it's easy to understand the idea I enjoy sexing men). And also, I'm much less sure of myself there -- had a couple of bumps -- this one time during sex I felt so fucking macho, the most macho I've ever felt in my life. My voice definitely lowered an octave. That was a very interesting experience, because I felt an instinctive desire and need to put my hands round his throat, and in that one second, every concern raised by man-hating feminists which I had been dubious about up to that point made sense instantly. Blokes are cunts, and need to be killed. [/Extreme, unfounded view, which shouldn't be processed at the same level as the rest of the post] Accept the gender nonbinary, or else you will DIE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emasher Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 So basically what you're suggesting is that people are more manly or womanly because of their interests/the way they act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'm suggesting people are. Taste and action are tangible things we can look at and discuss. It's hard to talk about the way people are. --- But yeah, I think if people accepted a gender spectrum, there'd be less shit re: sexism. Slash maybe not, since people like to hate, and dominate, and it's late in the morning. [/the quite-bad rap from the second track of my debut] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I'm suggesting people are. Taste and action are tangible things we can look at and discuss. It's hard to talk about the way people are. --- But yeah, I think if people accepted a gender spectrum, there'd be less shit re: sexism. Slash maybe not, since people like to hate, and dominate, and it's late in the morning. [/the quite-bad rap from the second track of my debut] But then, couldn't you argue that what you're doing is simply trying to expand on labels that might still be inadequate? Like, there are many degrees of interest in football, for instance (just to continue with the example), and not two people are likely completely identical in their football fandom. Categorising personally types is of course a great way to make it easier to relate to people initially (and may or may not be accurate/adequate enough for one's immediate needs depending on the severity with which one generalises the traits), but if we really break it down, isn't any form of attemp to categorise and label a personality going to be inaccurate at some level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 What would the spectrum look like? Would you have very manly on one side and very feminine on the other and everything else in the middle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramar Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I gather from that wall-o-text that I'm a cunt, tell me something I didn't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieColeslaw Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Accept the gender nonbinary, or else you will DIE. You mean something like pansexuality? I've often wondered what the world would be like if everyone were truly gender-blind. Would it be better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 We aren't equal. Life isn't fair. It's everyone for themselves. Morality is an illusion. Don't let the bastards grind you down. Gender is a binary if people accept it as such. Nothing is true, everything is permitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 We aren't equal. Life isn't fair. It's everyone for themselves. Morality is an illusion. Don't let the bastards grind you down. Gender is a binary if people accept it as such. Nothing is true, everything is permitted. Well, aren't you just a big bundle of positivity! :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chairdriver Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share Posted March 8, 2011 We aren't equal. Life isn't fair. It's everyone for themselves. Morality is an illusion. Don't let the bastards grind you down. Gender is a binary if people accept it as such. Nothing is true, everything is permitted. I agree with all this, except that if you live within a culture which is heavily structured with rules and laws, everything isn't permitted. [Anarchy; we should have it etc.] But yeah, a girl needs a gun these days on account of those rattlesnakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daft Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Agreed, I was alluding to the idea that there are no intrinsic rules in life. Well, aren't you just a big bundle of positivity! :p I honestly have no idea why you think that is negative. It's absolutely liberating. Free your mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorty Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 I agree with all this, except that if you live within a culture which is heavily structured with rules and laws, everything isn't permitted. [Anarchy; we should have it etc.]Tbf, I'm pretty sure he was just quoting Assassin's Creed with that last bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts