Understanding Prejudice Quiz - Sexism
- Thread starter thrustbucket
- Start date
[quote name='thrustbucket']No it isn't. If a female can prove to be just as capable in tryouts, trials, or tests -- should she still be discounted because of her gender? Because they currently are.[/QUOTE]
Sure they should have a chance, otherwise it's discrimination.
I thought by "equal representation" you were arguing that it should be a near 50/50 split.
Sure they should have a chance, otherwise it's discrimination.
I thought by "equal representation" you were arguing that it should be a near 50/50 split.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
No just that there should be "requirements" for the job outside of sex.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dmaul1114']Sure they should have a chance, otherwise it's discrimination.
I thought by "equal representation" you were arguing that it should be a near 50/50 split.[/quote]
If they did equal representation based on gender/race, it wouldn't be a democracy anymore since there wouldn't be a point to holding elections anymore.
I thought by "equal representation" you were arguing that it should be a near 50/50 split.[/quote]
If they did equal representation based on gender/race, it wouldn't be a democracy anymore since there wouldn't be a point to holding elections anymore.
[quote name='thrustbucket']No just that there should be "requirements" for the job outside of sex.[/QUOTE]
Most definitely. A woman should be eligible for any job (that doesn't require a penis or testicles--sperm donor/research subject etc), anything less is discrimination. I just misread your original post.
Most definitely. A woman should be eligible for any job (that doesn't require a penis or testicles--sperm donor/research subject etc), anything less is discrimination. I just misread your original post.
HowStern
CAGiversary!
[quote name='SpazX']I'm not talking about being against war, I'm saying if you're against having selective service, why the hell would you argue for women being in selective service? That's just stupid.
You don't argue that women should equally have to suffer under something that you don't want to exist, you argue that it shouldn't exist. It's essentially saying that if one gender has it worse than the other, you should try to make it so that they both are treated equally badly rather than equally well.[/quote]
But it DOES exist. And as long as it does why are women excluded?
You don't argue that women should equally have to suffer under something that you don't want to exist, you argue that it shouldn't exist. It's essentially saying that if one gender has it worse than the other, you should try to make it so that they both are treated equally badly rather than equally well.[/quote]
But it DOES exist. And as long as it does why are women excluded?
[quote name='HowStern']But it DOES exist. And as long as it does why are women excluded?[/QUOTE]
He's saying why should feminists who oppose selective service fight for equality by fighting for women to be required to sign up.
That's stupid. They should fight for equality by doing away with selective service entirely, rather than fighting to expand something they oppose.
Now if you're talking a woman who supports the draft but doesn't want women included, then you'd have a point.
He's saying why should feminists who oppose selective service fight for equality by fighting for women to be required to sign up.
That's stupid. They should fight for equality by doing away with selective service entirely, rather than fighting to expand something they oppose.
Now if you're talking a woman who supports the draft but doesn't want women included, then you'd have a point.
HowStern
CAGiversary!
^Right, yeah. But, my thing with it is, I don't ever remember a group of women protesting selective services.
The draft, yes. SS, no. Because the draft isn't the even the negative part of SS now. It's the punishments that are still to this day being dealt for not registering despite there being no draft. Women don't have to go through that. So they aren't fighting it,.
The draft, yes. SS, no. Because the draft isn't the even the negative part of SS now. It's the punishments that are still to this day being dealt for not registering despite there being no draft. Women don't have to go through that. So they aren't fighting it,.
[quote name='HowStern']^Right, yeah. But, my thing with it is, I don't ever remember a group of women protesting selective services.
The draft, yes. SS, no. Because the draft isn't the even the negative part of SS now. It's the punishments that are still to this day being dealt for not registering despite there being no draft. Women don't have to go through that. So they aren't fighting it,.[/quote]
The entire point of selective service is to have a list of men for a potential draft. I don't know that anybody would be against a draft, but for a list of men for a draft. Some people are just weird, but I pretty sure 99% of people against drafts are also against selective service in general. It's just honestly not a very important equal rights issue (comparatively) when there isn't a draft, despite the fees/jail time one would get if they weren't signed up, so it's not really surprising if you haven't heard of a protest against it.
Besides, it's not like women are the ones who created selective service or uphold that women shouldn't be included or that women shouldn't be in combat (and feminists have definitely protested the exclusion of women in combat and the policy of drafting soldiers - both in general and for sex discrimination, if not specifically the current selective service system). Men had and still have majority control over all of those policies. You can't blame feminists for the continued existence of selective service, and if you think selective service shouldn't exist for either sex/gender then you're probably on the same side.
Again, you'll need a better example if you want to make the argument that women want male privileges while retaining female privileges (i.e. they want the "good" without the "bad").
BTW, NOW has its position on the draft/registration from when it was reinstated in 1980 on their website - http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/draft2.html
The draft, yes. SS, no. Because the draft isn't the even the negative part of SS now. It's the punishments that are still to this day being dealt for not registering despite there being no draft. Women don't have to go through that. So they aren't fighting it,.[/quote]
The entire point of selective service is to have a list of men for a potential draft. I don't know that anybody would be against a draft, but for a list of men for a draft. Some people are just weird, but I pretty sure 99% of people against drafts are also against selective service in general. It's just honestly not a very important equal rights issue (comparatively) when there isn't a draft, despite the fees/jail time one would get if they weren't signed up, so it's not really surprising if you haven't heard of a protest against it.
Besides, it's not like women are the ones who created selective service or uphold that women shouldn't be included or that women shouldn't be in combat (and feminists have definitely protested the exclusion of women in combat and the policy of drafting soldiers - both in general and for sex discrimination, if not specifically the current selective service system). Men had and still have majority control over all of those policies. You can't blame feminists for the continued existence of selective service, and if you think selective service shouldn't exist for either sex/gender then you're probably on the same side.
Again, you'll need a better example if you want to make the argument that women want male privileges while retaining female privileges (i.e. they want the "good" without the "bad").
BTW, NOW has its position on the draft/registration from when it was reinstated in 1980 on their website - http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/draft2.html
HowStern
CAGiversary!
[quote name='SpazX']
BTW, NOW has its position on the draft/registration from when it was reinstated in 1980 on their website - http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/draft2.html[/quote]
That's the position I agree with. It's word for word the way I feel. i.e. if it does exist none should be excluded.
BTW, NOW has its position on the draft/registration from when it was reinstated in 1980 on their website - http://www.now.org/issues/military/policies/draft2.html[/quote]
That's the position I agree with. It's word for word the way I feel. i.e. if it does exist none should be excluded.
bread's done