By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
mantlepiecek on 29 March 2013
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
mantlepiecek said:

You still have to prove that it results in the exclusion of women. Maybe you are not getting it.

And you still have to prove that the female dancers were comparable the the gay men scenario you provided. I don't think they are. Which is why I kept saying that your comparison is getting overboard when you compared this to meetings in strip clubs.

And no, that is not the message they sent. The person who sends the message knows about it MORE than the person who receives it. Fact.

The person receiving it can have the wrong interpretation, he can misunderstand it, there are many possibilities, so really. The person sending the message knows more about it than anyone else.

Racist people are determined to be racists based on their actions. Here we are not interpreting actions, we are doing something entirely else - trying to see what "message" they are trying to send because obviously having female dancers mean someone is trying to send a message.

Not every action has a message behind it.

No... i did prove it.  Hell the fact that a ton of people were upset and a bunch of people resigned shows that.

The promoters intentionally hired people that made a bunch of women proffesionals uncomfortable caused mass resignations from the IDGC and an immediate apology explaining why something so sexist and exlcusionatory happened.

You don't get more proof then that man.

 

That your intentionally trying to be blind to it  seems pretty obvious based on the fact that you seem to think gay dancers are more objectable then female ones.


Your logic further falls apart as your say "We're not interperting actions" and then saying "not every action has a meaning behind it."

You can't even stay consistant in a single post.  Which is it... did the actions have no meaning or are we not looking at actions at all?

There are plenty of racist people and sexist people who say and do plenty of exclusionary things and don't mean anything buy it.

You could have a manager about how women are inherently worse at math and that's why you see so few good female accountants.   Now he just believes women inherently suck at math... he doesn't mean any harm by it.   Yet you can damn well be sure he's creating an exclusionary hostile work enviroment for female accountants.

In that case the messsager doesn't know more about the message then the person recieving it.  THAT is a fact.

At bolded, intention was to hire. May not have been to make people uncomfortable. May not have been to exclude them from networking.

Not to mention that this in general makes all types of people uncomfortable, not just women. Which is why I thought it was inappropriate, not sexist.

Also mass resignations? So how many (in pure nos) resigned?

I didn't say gay dancers were more objectable than female dancers. I said the scenario you presented was more objectable.

I said not every action has a message behind it. If we did interpret their actions they were not sexist.

As far as the manager is concerned, I don't get that situation.

But I do know that until you see that there is a hostile working environment, you being sure of it is your own opinion that people who think like the said manager create hostile exclusionary environment.