Printable View
Yeah. Dosages are different for child vs adult, man vs woman, body weight, etc, etc. I don't think anyone ever considers that discriminatory.Quote:
Originally posted by Kailen
Though I do understand that in things such as medicine. All of the race, gender and size detail needs to be taken into consideration for treatment and such, but out side of this spectrum it only create division and seperation.
The entire debate is real simple to me.
Gender, race, sexual orientation and religion do make us different people.
Acting as if it doesn't is a childish mindset, one that is very common now as political correctness abounds.
I won't ever subscribe to that immature belief, but I will do my utmost to not judge people negatively based on those factors, knowing nothing else about them.
Yes, they make us different. But they don't make us so different that we can be pigeonholed based on one simple factor. There are a lot more similarities between people of the same culture (who may have differing skin colours and different descent) than people of the same descent (who may all have the same skin colour, but have gone to different countries). My family is partly of Italian heritage and partly of Dutch, but we're far more similar to the other Australians we live with than we are to people in Italy or Holland. If Italians had green skin and were hopeless at mathematics, then we would probably be classed as Italians (genetics won't eliminate green skin just because you emigrate), in spite of the fact that we're pretty familiar with the numerical arts. THAT is the sort of racism that's inaccurate.
What the fuck are you on about?
Great, now you're going to wind up getting an explanation. Future reference, its best just to let the rambling vagaries go on until they work themselves out.Quote:
Originally posted by Rilthyn
What the fuck are you on about?
I have endangered us all.
While these things do make people different to look at and thing like gender obviously affect mental biochemistry, they all (minus religion)make us a lot less different than, say, cultural background or education do.Quote:
Originally posted by Rilthyn
The entire debate is real simple to me.
Gender, race, sexual orientation and religion do make us different people.
Acting as if it doesn't is a childish mindset, one that is very common now as political correctness abounds.
I won't ever subscribe to that immature belief, but I will do my utmost to not judge people negatively based on those factors, knowing nothing else about them.
It's not immature to know that the way we're born, except in extreme cases (mental disability etc) has no real bearing on what we become. This is more affected by my education, my parentage and my peers.
If I had been born to black parents and grown up in the exact same place, treated exactly the same with the same family/school etc, I wouldn't be a fuck different. If I was born white but was raised in a super strict presbyterian family, that would affect me greatly.
What's immature is putting people into groups based on inconsequential information about them.
Your aggression towards Rosuav, along with Darion's uncharacteristic attitude of not bringing anything to a debate which isn't just aggressive wankery (see what I did there?), really doesn't help anything.
And that is precisely what I was saying. Thanks Khaltek; Rilthyn and Darion now need fear no further explanation from me.Quote:
Originally posted by khaltek
If I had been born to black parents and grown up in the exact same place, treated exactly the same with the same family/school etc, I wouldn't be a fuck different. If I was born white but was raised in a super strict presbyterian family, that would affect me greatly.
Quote:
Originally posted by khaltek
While these things do make people different to look at and thing like gender obviously affect mental biochemistry, they all (minus religion)make us a lot less different than, say, cultural background or education do.
It's not immature to know that the way we're born, except in extreme cases (mental disability etc) has no real bearing on what we become. This is more affected by my education, my parentage and my peers.
If I had been born to black parents and grown up in the exact same place, treated exactly the same with the same family/school etc, I wouldn't be a fuck different. If I was born white but was raised in a super strict presbyterian family, that would affect me greatly.
Actually, the conditions of your birth are a direct reflection of the cultural background you find yourself suddenly thrust into postpartum.
Your example is incorrect and deliberately misleading, mostly due to the fact that it requires the reader to begin by assuming set of hypothetical circumstances that are completely impossible and unable to be measured or otherwise intelligently articulated.
In the first instance you state that all developmental factors being precisely the same, a retroactive change in skin color would not have affected you. This is a terrible postulation for several reasons, the two most glaring being these:
- There is no way to prove or even positively argue your hypothesis except that you feel that it "sounds right" and,
- You presume that a retroactive alteration in the skin color of your family may be assumed without changing anything else about your or their entire lives, while the very act of changing something that fundamental would completely alter an individual's development, thus making your parameters (everything else remaining the same) a simple exercise in a repeating a "no, but..." defense when given a logical argument form in return.
You then go on to say that if you change another culturally-dependent developmental factor (retroactively adding a strict religious upbringing), you would have matured and developed into adulthood differently.
In fact, you have essentially just made an argument (if you changed skin color, nothing would change) and then counterpointed yourself (if you changed religious upbringing, everything would change). I don't think you're really splitting the atom as far as reasonable, intelligent thought processes go.
Also feel free to check out the stickied "Logical Fallacy and You!" thread at the top of the Politics forum, particularly the section on "Begging the Question". I'll do you a solid and explain how it applies to your flawed argument form - your entire argument rests upon the premise that we can jump back into the past and retroactively alter a major aspect of an individual's mental/social development process and change NOTHING ELSE about that person's life, to include the way in which the rest of the world interacted with them for their entire lives. You are assuming this before your argument has even gotten underway.
No - I mentally checked out once I saw the triple negative.Quote:
Your aggression towards Rosuav, along with Darion's uncharacteristic attitude of not bringing anything to a debate which isn't just aggressive wankery (see what I did there?), really doesn't help anything.
Recognizing differences doesn't always encourage racism. It encourages knowledge, in my opinion. I always welcome people to ask me about my race and culture and what it was like to grow up with severe culture clash in a very small, Christian town. I prefer that to people stumbling around trying not to "offend me" by pretending I don't look very different from many of my neighbors.
Political correctness does hurt us in this way, imo. People want to be so politically correct that they try to ignore something that is totally in their face.
Ultimately, there are tons of things I wouldn't have experienced if I had been born in the US and born white, and there are tons of things that the people who know be wouldn't have experienced peripherally if I hadn't been born Asian, in another country, and moved to a predominantly white town.
Anyway, sorry about derailing the topic. Just wanted to give another view and possible other thoughts. I'm guessing that almost all sports stars sign some sort of behavioral conduct contract. Most of the time, it's not enforced. (Come on, how many sports stars beat their wives, kill people in DUIs, and shoot themselves or their limo drivers? TOO MANY!) Tis a shame that it's enforced more often on words than actions, but that seems to be the going thing.
Darion, skin color still doesn't affect you. What you're noting is that skin color and significancies may have a common cause. Your religious upbringing will have a lot of effect on your adult life (even if you deliberately turn away from it); and if you're raised in the Foo culture, you're going to act like a Foo. That's nothing to do with skin color, but if most Foos have purple polkadotted skin, then being raised in a Foo culture won't give you that skin, but you will absorb the culture.
This is precisely the "no, but..." that I mentioned in my previous post. You are fully aware that in this context Khaltek has used skin color as a synonym for "race". Apply his example to yourself - you said you were of mixed Italian and Dutch heritage.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Darion, skin color still doesn't affect you. What you're noting is that skin color and significancies may have a common cause. Your religious upbringing will have a lot of effect on your adult life (even if you deliberately turn away from it); and if you're raised in the Foo culture, you're going to act like a Foo. That's nothing to do with skin color, but if most Foos have purple polkadotted skin, then being raised in a Foo culture won't give you that skin, but you will absorb the culture.
Now, attempt to wrap your brain around this: Instead of your ancestry being European, it is now African. You are simply not the same person. Your entire family will have been raised with a fully divergent set of cultural norms throughout literally countless generations.
It is being put forth that despite this impossibly profound change to your genealogy that your family life, societal interactions, upbringing, development into adulthood, education, etc etc etc are all exactly the same as they are now. It is a simple impossibility and a terrible, terrible, terrible example. This entire tangent is like trying to hammer a square peg through a round hole. It doesn't work.
Rosuav is a habitual rambler at times, he knows it, I know it, and I'm sure plenty others know it.Quote:
Originally posted by khaltek
Your aggression towards Rosuav...
What I quoted was some rich, creamy rambling. What the fuck was he on about!?
Were you actually able to make sense of what I was referring to?
Wrong, plain wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
skin color still doesn't affect you.
If you need an example, how about say, your first day of school.
~carries in a shovel~
Any way we can bury this topic, say, immediately?
I don't think the topic should be buried. By burying it you never address it. By not addressing it peoples eyes never open, or close.
You mean, because people can be racist, your race makes a difference?Quote:
Originally posted by Rilthyn
Wrong, plain wrong.
If you need an example, how about say, your first day of school.
I guess my first day at school will be rather awful. Not because of race or skin colour, though. I'm dreading the day when I go to school and suddenly get teased for the first time in my life.
I'm not sure what started this conversation, so at the risk of inadvertently offending someone I have to agree with Darion.
It is all too common for people to take the politically correct "environmental sociology" viewpoint and abandon the "physical sociology" viewpoint where both are AT LEAST partially correct. To assume that everything about our physical makeup is controlled by heredity but that SOMEHOW, by a humorous intervention of a divine being, our habits, personality traits, and culinary preferences are completely independent of those of our ancestry and rely solely on environment, to me is laughable.
However I don't see how this is negative. Nor do I see how so many people take offense to this veiwpoint.
My Fiance for example is of Hispanic decent. Born and raised here in the US just like her Mother was. However there are certain mannerisms of her's that are as stereotypical as the color of her hair. I love her dearly for all of them, and were she not of hispanic decent, I doubt I would find her as irresistable as I do-- Lustrous ebony hair, fiery temper and all.
I agree with the idea that ignoring the fact that we are different (and that these differences are more than skin deep) is childish. Not only that they are childish but that they absolutely stand in the way of diversification, in the name of integration. We can say that we are all the same, but isn't that what the Nazi's wanted?
Yes, that's one of the reasons. You have mistakenly posed the question as if it is rhetorical with the obvious answer being "no", when in reality the obvious answer is "yes".Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
You mean, because people can be racist, your race makes a difference?
There are a multitude of reasons why people will treat you differently based upon your race, culture, religion, values, or whatever particular aspect you decide to latch on it, and I would hazard a guess that this is obvious to anybody who has thought about it for a second or two.
Well personally, I think its a bit deeper then many of you see as skin color, and whatever else that has been debated previously.
A couple of points that stand out to me about race. Race is a excellent factor in developing treatment plan for medicine.
*Different racial groups have certain predispositions to different health risk. Thus appropriate treatment needs to be developed.
*Racism is manifested by parents and taught to children. Kids really are born into the world innocent and pure. They aren't aware of skin color until they are told by their parent or from their environment (family members, friends etc.)
*In America, Race and politics goes hand and hand. Race has been used to turn a profit in many major cities. I can completely testify to this here in Detroit.
*I personally feel Liberalism in America has done far more damage then the minuscule good that is sold to people on a daily basis.
This would include Welfare, Feminism and any other program that weakens a American man or American woman.
*Then you have the Prison-industrial complex as it relations to race and public perception, and the correlation to a lack of education.
Anyhow these are often good topics of interest in the discussion of race. More so then focusing on skin color.
At the risk of wading into a conversation that is more contentious than I normally prefer to engage in, I would also like to offer a few observations. Most of these come from my studies in sociology, which has a very rich tradition of studying various forms of inequalities (and Tartun, I would really like to know what you meant by "environmental sociology" and "physical sociology"). While my primary area of study is not race, the areas I do study (gender, medical sociology, and work) are sometimes closely aligned.
First, I think it is very important to point out that Rosuav is from Australia. This is not simply pointing out the obvious; American sociological studies are rife with race studies, where race is primarily defined by skin color and/or other physically notable characteristics. However, European/Canadian sociology - and I might wager Australian as well - tends to focus far more on ethnicity, which is defined as cultural heritage. Race and ethnicity are -not- the same thing, though they often go hand in hand. I point this out because of the discussions of the effect of skin color. This is a valid issue to discuss in the U.S.; it may be of lesser importance in other countries (depending on the circumstances; this is not meant as a generalization).
Second, the effect of the social vs. the physical is greatly debated. There is certainly evidence on both sides, with different camps attributing greater or lesser importance to social environment vs. physiology/genetics. I will admit right away that I tend to fall in the former camp, but I am not a purist. I would be happy to briefly outline the arguments of each side and perhaps even dig up some of the more important studies within the field.
The one thing I really want to point out here is that we must be mindful of the interaction between the social and the body. There is a very interesting and rapidly growing body of work that focuses on the effect of discrimination (perceived or real), chronic stress, and disadvantage (poverty, unemployment, crime, poor neighborhood, etc.) on the body. Some evidence suggests that several of the purported physiological differences between Whites and Black (there are fewer studies on Hispanic and Asian, though they are beginning to appear) may actually be due to this build up of stress (referred to as allostatic load). This is especially true for certain mental disorders and high blood pressure, but may apply to other conditions as well. This, by no means, negates the importance of genetics, but there is definitely more to it than bodily predispositions to one disease or another.
This is only a couple very brief points. As I said, I would be glad to go into further detail if anyone is interested. If there is a specific question that someone would like to know more about (i.e., whether there have been any studies on the topic and what they suggest), I'd also be glad to discuss that.
Keep up the good work Caer! :P
Highlighted for relevancy and accuracy.Quote:
Originally posted by Caer
However, European/Canadian sociology - and I might wager Australian as well - tends to focus far more on ethnicity, which is defined as cultural heritage. Race and ethnicity are -not- the same thing, though they often go hand in hand.
Kailen, I think I agree with some of what you're saying but because you didn't actually explain any of your points, I might actually disagree with everything you've said.
For example, you say that feminism has done far more damage than the miniscule good it's done. Do you mean the idea of patriarchy theory, or the entire women's movement?
The following are some gains that the women's movement have helped achieve over the years. I personally live daily with, or have been touched in an important way by, every single one of these gains.
Women's suffrage (giving women the vote)
Giving women the right to hold political office
Giving women the right to hold citizenship (their citizen status used to be dependant on the citizen status of their husband)
Equal education opportunities
Equal pay for equal work
Birth Control
Safe, legal abortions
Better sexual rights (ie, making rape inside marriage a crime)
Affordable daycare
I would appreciate it if you could argue your case that any of these gains are minuscule.
I'm not sure how to phrase this properly, but being allowed rights that give you full responsibility for your achievements and mistakes is the sort of liberty that helps makes you a human instead of a child, and I think that it can only be good for the world to have people be responsible instead of protected.
Well Mal,
In the case of Feminism all the points you have mentioned are excellent accomplishments, and are great.
Unfortunately, I personally some of the ugly of feminism is the pitting the two genders against each other. The many that I've came across are the one's who are constantly attempting to compete against men under the banner that a woman can do anything a man can do.
This simply isn't true. Men are better at certain things, and Women are better in other things. I do not believe women should be allowed in combat.
These are just a few...
I don't want to derail the conversation, but I just want to quickly point something out.Women should have just as much right to aim for something and fail as a man. SOME women WILL be better at non traditional women's things than SOME men. Just as you wouldn't stop a man who wasn't that great at trying to do a thing, you shouldn't stop a woman just because she's a woman.Quote:
Originally posted by Kailen
[feminists are] constantly attempting to compete against men under the banner that a woman can do anything a man can do.
This simply isn't true. Men are better at certain things, and Women are better in other things.
Yeah, you're not the first person I've heard say this. I don't know what to answer you with because you haven't made an argument, you've just put your opinion.Quote:
[ I do not believe women should be allowed in combat.
I don't know. There is nothing to argue. Some people will always fill different or indifferent about things. This is one of those topics where you can't change another person's view. So why even try?
I personally would like to see just open discussion about peoples own personal experience with race, and such...
I'm sure we would be interested, just keep participating in this discussion. Your post is the most thoughtful thus far in this breakaway-thread.Quote:
Originally posted by Caer
As I said, I would be glad to go into further detail if anyone is interested
This reminds me of an old Maori proverb (at least that's what I was told in class all those years ago) quite abrupt really, but that's the nature of the culture.Quote:
Originally posted by Kailen
I do not believe women should be allowed in combat.
"For land and women, men will die."
I actually meant in terms other than bumping into KKK kiddies, but take from my statement what you will.Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
You mean, because people can be racist, your race makes a difference?
I guess my first day at school will be rather awful. Not because of race or skin colour, though. I'm dreading the day when I go to school and suddenly get teased for the first time in my life.
Who will you choose to sit beside during recess?
Who will choose to sit beside you during recess?
Who would be the likely first few people to approach you in a friendly manner?
Who would be the likely first few people to approach you in an unfriendly manner?
Who are your first friends at the end of the day, the ones you tell mommy and daddy about?
Act as though race wouldn't factor into any of those points, but throughout my life, I've seen people flock to whoever looks the most like themselves. From my first day of school, to the end of high school, and beyond.
I would love that, if the point of the thread was to only relate your own stories, and not comment or criticise those of others.Quote:
Originally posted by Kailen
I personally would like to see just open discussion about peoples own personal experience with race, and such...
Quite possibly impossible, though.
Not impossible, would take some serious moderation though.
You guys are free to discuss whatever you want, I'll be happy to subscribe to the thread and moderate the hell out of it.
Race, gender, culture, etc. Whatever.
In the end, success and limitations are going to come down to 2 things regardless of all the rest:
1. Your level of intelligence.
2. Your access to education/information to take advantage of your intelligence.
There is great degree of luck and good health that would be the part of that as well.Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
Race, gender, culture, etc. Whatever.
In the end, success and limitations are going to come down to 2 things regardless of all the rest:
1. Your level of intelligence.
2. Your access to education/information to take advantage of your intelligence.
I never had to ask these questions. But to be quite frank, I think that, were I to be thrown into such a system...Quote:
Originally posted by Rilthyn
I actually meant in terms other than bumping into KKK kiddies, but take from my statement what you will.
Who will you choose to sit beside during recess?
Who will choose to sit beside you during recess?
Who would be the likely first few people to approach you in a friendly manner?
Who would be the likely first few people to approach you in an unfriendly manner?
Who are your first friends at the end of the day, the ones you tell mommy and daddy about?
1-2) Nobody. I'd sit on my own.
3) Nobody, at least until I've proven my worth.
4) Everybody, or else nobody (because it's not worth it). I don't know about that one.
5) Nobody. Easily.
I have never been one to worry about my peers, so people not sitting with me at recess would (a) not be a problem, and (b) be my goal.
Godwin!Quote:
We can say that we are all the same, but isn't that what the Nazi's wanted?
/thread
Bullshit, kids are born instinctively knowing how to lie, steal, and emotionally manipulate their peers. It's not taught, it's inherent. Kids are born amoral beasts, and it's up to parents to instil discipline, boundaries, and an appropriate moral compass.Quote:
Kids really are born into the world innocent and pure.
(I'm not referring to original sin or any other such silliness, these aspects are atrophied survival instincts from a much older and hairy-knuckled human.)
And thanks for breaking the seal of Vulgarity on this thread. It definitely contributes greatly to the conversation.Quote:
Originally posted by Maelgrim
Bullshit,
Okay folks, if you want to discuss race-related stuff in this thread you're welcome to. If people are going to start throwing up snide one-line posts about how someone else is an ass/made a crappy point/has no prior experience/is amused by someone's commentary despite their inexperience in the aforementioned subject matter (Kailen, I am already looking at you and have deleted one of your posts already), then this thread is already over. Last call.
Whatever the reason, be it original sin, evolutionary throwback, or alien influences bathing earth with pure evilness ten gazillion years ago, it's pretty obvious that children are born knowing how to do wrong, and have to be taught how to do right. You've grasped this fact, Maelgrim. And you can see that it's an obvious one. So... please help me out here... I'm desperately trying to understand one thing. Can you explain why there are mothers who think their brats are little darlings, cajole them to help mummy carry these bags (which are the child's things anyway), offer them rewards if they do what mummy wants... and why do they persist in these useless but demeaning attempts to get their children to do things? I've seen it time and again, and all they're doing is training the brats (I don't use the term often, but it accurately applies in this situation) to tantrum, because whenever they tantrum, mummy does what they want. DUH!Quote:
Originally posted by Maelgrim
Bullshit, kids are born instinctively knowing how to lie, steal, and emotionally manipulate their peers. ... I'm not referring to original sin or any other such silliness, these aspects are atrophied survival instincts from a much older and hairy-knuckled human.)
I'd add to your list that children are born with the ability to train their parents, but parents aren't born with the ability to train their children. Hint #1: If you want the child to do what you want, not what they want, it helps to be smarter than him. Alas, certain blond mothers of my acquaintance would have trouble being smarter than one of Leonora Braham's characters. I'm not sure, but I think they might make a fairly good case for mandatory adoption..... *ROLL*
I see what you did there.... HAIL XENU! :DQuote:
or alien influences bathing earth with pure evilness ten gazillion years ago
Because good for nothing liberal academics who have never had a child in their lives have told them that the adage 'spare the rod, spoil the child' is evil and horrible child abuse, and is also directly responsible for the holocaust and the crucifixion.Quote:
Can you explain why there are mothers who think their brats are little darlings, cajole them to help mummy carry these bags (which are the child's things anyway), offer them rewards if they do what mummy wants... and why do they persist in these useless but demeaning attempts to get their children to do things?
In any case, that's enough off topic for me.
To bring this thread back on topic, I wanted to comment on the above.Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
Race, gender, culture, etc. Whatever.
In the end, success and limitations are going to come down to 2 things regardless of all the rest:
1. Your level of intelligence.
2. Your access to education/information to take advantage of your intelligence.
I honestly wish this statement were correct. It seems like it would be a better world if we truly awarded success by merit/effort/etc. However, this just isn't the case.
First, intelligence and education do matter. I agree entirely. Whether they matter more than gender/race/culture...I'm not so sure about that. To state that intelligence and education are the only things that matter for success in life assumes that everyone begins at the same starting place. This just is not so. To illustrate:
A individual born rich will have better access to education than an individual born poor.
African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minority groups are disproportionately poor.
Women, despite massive gains on men in educational attainment, are still earn less per dollar than men and receive fewer promotions.
Current intelligence tests may have a cultural bias toward a white middle-class orientation.
(I can probably list citations for any of those or go into further detail.)
I could probably list a number of other ways in which the starting line is not the same for everyone, but I think this makes the point. Does education/intelligence matter? Yes. Is it the most important or only thing that matters? Absolutely not. And, to be sure, there is variation even in the statements I have made. Those statements are intended only as generalized, "on average", statements. Some poor individuals will do more with their limited opportunities than rich individuals will. Not all minorities are poor, uneducated, or unsuccessful. Plenty of women earn more than some men. However, on average, the reverse is true.
I think it is vitally important to recognize that these inequalities still exist. Societies are still stratified into unequal portions, with unequal access to resources such as wealth and education. They are stratified by race, gender, and to some extent, culture. Things are definitely improving, but we cannot turn a blind eye now that it has gotten "better" when the problem still remains. To make statements that the only thing that matters for success in life is one's intelligence and education (one's merit) is to overlook the inequalities that remain. It is blaming the victim for shortcomings that they have no control over.
Let's be mindful to recognize that, in addition to one's intelligence and education, other factors, such as race, gender, class, and culture, affect one's success and limitations in life.
At birth, children have not yet been conditioned to value morality, thus you are somewhat incorrect in that they do not "know how to do wrong" as you put it. Rather, they lack the understanding necessary to make a value-based decision until they have acquired the necessary societal values (from their parents).Quote:
Originally posted by Rosuav
Whatever the reason, be it original sin, evolutionary throwback, or alien influences bathing earth with pure evilness ten gazillion years ago, it's pretty obvious that children are born knowing how to do wrong, and have to be taught how to do right.
To say that children are born knowing how to do wrong and need to be taught to do right is only half correct. They are born with the -ability- to do wrong, just like everyone else in the world, and it's up to the parents to see what gets scribbled down on that blank slate.
What you describe as evolutionary throwbacks/original sin is nothing more than an understanding of societal values that has not yet been established.
Quote:
Originally posted by Caer
A individual born rich will have better access to education than an individual born poor.
African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minority groups are disproportionately poor.
This is related to something that annoys me. It's not specifically tied to race, but rather to a sense of pride. Listen to some Gangsta Rap one day and you'll hear of how the most downtrodden, the most unlawful, those who suffer the most are the ones to be modelled after. Songs about shooting each other. Robbing stores. Committing acts that will create burdens later in life that, when the juvenile acts fade into the past, now the adult who lived that life can not provide for the children their antics created.
There was a very controversial song put out not too many years ago. It had a line in it, and with unnecessary (and rather racist if said by a white guy, which I am) words removed, it went along the lines of, "Buy some land. Fuck spinning rims."
In today's society a black, asian, whatever man or woman can succeed. Their general culture, the culture that I see displayed most often, is what would prevent more from being successful. The youth commits acts, suffers later in life. They take pride in their suffering and then it is passed down to the next generation. Maybe not by their parents. But definitely by the media they come in contact with.
Fewer men call in with cramps/daycare. Is the the primary reason? Probably not. But it is one of many that in current times keeps women from rising as fast and as high. Why would an employer want to invest as much money/responsibility into a woman that, maybe subconsciously he has these concerns and means no actual negativity towards, will cause him more headache?Quote:
Women, despite massive gains on men in educational attainment, are still earn less per dollar than men and receive fewer promotions.
Ok. So that's going to get flamed. Attacking a women's movement in general will get flamed. I will say though that while I don't disagree with the women's movement, I do believe there were negatives to it that we are feeling years later.
An example. It's a simple one.
50 years ago the average household had a single income situation. Forget gender. It was just one paycheck.
Suddenly women entered the workforce and now a lot of families had two! Maybe the second wasn't as much. But it was more than before.
The price of goods rose to compensate, as is par for the course with supply and demand.
Suddenly women had paychecks and could take care of themselves without that evil, evil man.
Divorce skyrockets.
Now you have a LOT of single parent situations, struggling to survive off of their one paycheck, while dual-paycheck families are doing fairly well.
Hey, at least you're empowered, right?
Also, what about Timmy and Josh whose mother (or father) now has to work two jobs just to get by because the cost of living is higher than their single job income? The cost of daycare eating half of the second. No time spent with them so they're raised by Grandma, or the neighbor. No time to teach them to do the right thing. A generation of children raised by television and MTV. (The same MTV that's telling them that acting like a hoodlum and treating women like whores and sluts is ok....and the girls who see this as being acceptable come to accept it)
But hey, at least you can vote, right?
I'm not saying it's bad that women are making "progress" as defined by whatever they choose to define it as.
I'm just saying that there have been very widespread repercussions that have been negative.
[/QUOTE]
Current intelligence tests may have a cultural bias toward a white middle-class orientation....
Body of text removed for brevity
...Let's be mindful to recognize that, in addition to one's intelligence and education, other factors, such as race, gender, class, and culture, affect one's success and limitations in life. [/QUOTE]
The rest of your post I had nothing else I wished to comment on. I've given enough flame worthy material already.
At some level I hate posting here atm because I just don't have time to look up stats and histories and names and what not, so please excuse that this comment isn't sourced.Quote:
But hey, at least you can vote, right?
I'm not saying it's bad that women are making "progress" as defined by whatever they choose to define it as.
I'm just saying that there have been very widespread repercussions that have been negative.
When you look at history, any sort of major change to social structure always brings problems for the system, and pain for those whose situation has most changed. Think of the clearances and poor houses of the industrial revolution. Think of various colonies that shrugged off imperial rule, think of the American Civil war, think of South Africa and the ANC.
Challenges to a system don't HAVE to make life worse for those living in the system, and systems react differently to changes. Not all countries that have the same rights for women that the US does, have the same divorce and poverty rates, right?
Maybe you could do me a favor (I haven't got the time to do it, but I'd be interested to see the numbers) and check out wealth and income distribution in the US over the past 100 years (since women got the vote). If the average family's wealth share is decreasing, and their real wealth is stagnant, then does that also mean something to you?
I think it's probably useful to think about the fact that the decline in the number of pirates since the 1700's has paralleled a rise in average global temperatures. Correlation doesn't equal causation.
gak sorry. I hope this kinda makes sense. gotta go
I'll try to elaborate on my opinion here. Intelligence and access to education to feed that intelligence are basically generalized relevant to certain issues. For instance...Quote:
Originally posted by Caer
First, intelligence and education do matter. I agree entirely. Whether they matter more than gender/race/culture...I'm not so sure about that. To state that intelligence and education are the only things that matter for success in life assumes that everyone begins at the same starting place. This just is not so.
As long as they're provided with the basics (free school, free library, etc.), an intelligent person will determine the quality of their own education. One way or another. They won't let culture, peer pressure, bad teachers, out-dated text books, etc. distract them from satiating their hunger to learn and succeed. Curiosity is its own motivation.Quote:
Originally posted by Caer
To illustrate:
A individual born rich will have better access to education than an individual born poor.
African-Americans, Hispanics, and other minority groups are disproportionately poor.
Whether or not this is true is irrelevant. Truly intelligent people find a way to work the system and/or succeed on their own terms. If you are smart enough, you really can accomplish anything. Some successful people (we've all heard of at least a few) were so intelligent that they dropped out of school to pursue what they wanted because school was limiting them!Quote:
Originally posted by Caer
Current intelligence tests may have a cultural bias toward a white middle-class orientation.
Most people simply aren't that smart, regardless of race or gender, so my entire argument, although true, may be moot.
The basics also include housing, food, and in many cases, access to medicine. The fact is that there are many people without inherited access to these basics, and have to spend all of their free time acquiring some or all of them; it's hard to study at the library when starving.Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
As long as they're provided with the basics (free school, free library, etc.), an intelligent person will determine the quality of their own education.
Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
The basics also include housing, food, and in many cases, access to medicine. The fact is that there are many people without inherited access to these basics, and have to spend all of their free time acquiring some or all of them; it's hard to study at the library when starving.
I like how you put that Snrrub.
I haven't been adding much but I've been reading this thread with interest, and just wanted to point out that we're combining some characteristics here.Quote:
Originally posted by Jyn
As long as they're provided with the basics (free school, free library, etc.), an intelligent person will determine the quality of their own education. One way or another. They won't let culture, peer pressure, bad teachers, out-dated text books, etc. distract them from satiating their hunger to learn and succeed. Curiosity is its own motivation.
Intelligence and motivation are not the same thing. I'm not sure how you are using the term 'intelligence' here, but to me it often means the potential for learning, or gifts in certain areas of learning that are often believed to be innate.
Motivation on the other hand, can vary highly based on circumstances.
I only mention this because I think that it is troublesome to assume that those lacking in motivation are also lacking in intelligence.
I'm not saying that these things aren't factors. I'm saying that, if you're intelligent enough, you'll be able to overcome anything else.Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
The basics also include housing, food, and in many cases, access to medicine.
Besides, this thread is mostly relevant to relationships and social status of whites, blacks, Asians, latinos, etc. as they relate to each other in the Western world. Food, housing, medicine? For the most part, there are social programs to help address these issues. Smart people take advantage of these programs and any benefits that come from living in a society, and they use it to better themselves and move up the ranks. The rest stagnate and leech off society the rest of their lives. There are always exceptions, and people in Western society who
have no access to social programs, are homeless and jobless, and don't know when they'll have their next meal may be those exceptions... but really, their numbers are small enough to be insignificant.
Even if there aren't social programs, finding food and shelter and such is basic survival that all living things must successfully achieve. Too many people are too dependent on structured society and not self-reliant enough, but that's going off into a different topic.
Again, we're talking about Western society here. If a person is spending literally all of their free time trying to figure out how to acquire food without money, and it's to the point they have no time to better themselves, they're not intelligent enough to solve basic life problems.Quote:
Originally posted by Snrrub
The fact is that there are many people without inherited access to these basics, and have to spend all of their free time acquiring some or all of them; it's hard to study at the library when starving.
Jyn, would an accurate summary of your position be that poor people are poor because they're stupid?
No, and if that's the idea I seem to be stating, I apologize. There is a difference between being stupid and not being intelligent enough.Quote:
Originally posted by Malacasta
Jyn, would an accurate summary of your position be that poor people are poor because they're stupid?
What I am saying, to move this thread a little back on topic, is that poor people stay poor because they're not intelligent enough to find a way to move up to the next tier in society. They do not stay poor because of the color of their skin or any of the social trends that go with that color. They stay poor because of the choices they make.