| JWeinCom said: Good for you. I'm sure other gay people would like to be able to keep their job. Nobody is going to force you to work for a homophobic boss. But if a gay person wants to work wherever they want for whatever reason, wouldn't you agree that they should have the right to do so if they are qualified? For the sake of reference, what I meant by "chatty" and that stuff is in reference to a study. Teachers (male and female) were asked to self report on how much the different genders spoke in class, and spoke out of turn compared to a researchers observations. Teachers reported that females spoke more often in and out of turn when in fact males did more of both. The teachers' bias influenced their view of reality, just like your insistence that women are less motivated likely influences yours. Again, like the OP, you half read what I wrote because you wanted to make some sort of statement. I specifically compared underweight people to people within normal weight range. But please, do not let what I actually said get in the way of the point you want to make about how anti-scientific I am. If you really don't think power matters in the grand scheme of reality than I don't even know what to say about that. How people see things is irrelevant. We live in a society where we do not only interact with eachother as individuals but as groups as well. Often, the group identity is far more important than the individual identity. If you are in any doubt of this, go to a football game. See how important group identity is and how easily people will turn on eachother for no other reason but preference of sports team. And if you're actually interested, look into the Milgram experiments and the Stanford prison experiment, or the bystander apathy experiment. |
Fortunately gay people are not some collective group-mind and we are all distinct individuals who are not defined by our gayness. While I am sure there are tons of gay people seeking anti-discrimination status, there are plenty like myself who like freedom of association, as it makes things quite clear. I don't think they have a right to force employers to hire them or maintain their employment. And honestly I think there are tons of ways an employer will fire them anyway, even if the real reason is that they are gay. So it isn't even as if the laws will prevent employers from firing gay people for that reason. Freedom of association trumps anybody's "right" to a job. If subtle racism, homophobia, sexism, are really true problems then is it not because the racists, homophobes, and sexists aren't showing their true colors? Sunlight is the best disinfectent, afterall.
Where did I say anthing about the capabilities of women? I didn't say women aren't capable of working 80 hours a week, or pursuing money, or being motivated to do these things. I said they choose not to and are less motivated to do so (they have different interests and motivations on average.) I also said nothing about why they choose these paths. One only has to look at the gender ratios of STEM majors, the ratio of men/women who are breadwinners, and the average number of hours men and women work respectively. Also, while I don't think men and women are unequal, I do think they are different. We all know that there is a male and female brain and way of thinking, as evidenced by studies of trans people.
http://qz.com/149428/mens-overtime-hours-are-keeping-the-gender-pay-gap-alive/
I realized that, and edited my post. Respond to my editted response:
"Is this true? I haven't experienced people with a lower BMI being considered healthier than people in the normal range. In fact for men this is certainly not true, being underweight is viewed down upon. Maybe compared to overweight people underweight people are viewed ideally, but there is good reason for that. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S. "
When did I say "power doesn't matter at all?" I was arguing against the assertion that racist, sexist, deplorable things are viewed as not a big deal or not even racist, sexist or deplorable because the people saying them aren't powerful. That is the ridiculous sentiment. That power exists in group (as well as individual) form was never in contest.
To generalize whether or not human beings view things based on a group by looking at group sports like "football" can't be a serious argument can it? How we treat individuals in daily interactions is not the same thing as a football game or the rivalry it creates. Nor does it refute the much greater role of individuality in our interactions with others.
The Milgram experiments and the Stanford prison experiments are experiments asking questions about the relationship between authority and obedience. If you had a mixed group of diverse individuals and you labeled one authority and the other obedient, the same situation would occur. I really don't see how this connects with the hypothesis that it is (more) alright to negatively target and generalize people whom belong to a class that is overepresented among the powerful (also note powerful =/= authoritarian.) Sure groups exist with characteristics, who was disputing that? You failed to address my point that more people (I'd argue a majority) today look at individual merits rather than group traits. In fact we consciously push against these natural sub-conscious impulses.
