Necessary double standards?

[DEAD34345]

Sports: Yes, males tend to be genetically stronger and fitter than females, but if a female who happens to be just as good at a game as the top males comes along, then why shouldn't they be allowed in the top teams?

Men tend to be genetically stronger, and if we only had co-ed teams, they would tend to be a majority of the players every time. In this case I see no reason not to separate them. Men and women aren't the same and should not be denied proper opportunity to play the sports professionally that they love.

You see, I have pretty much the same opinion, yet come to the opposite conclusion. Men and women should not be denied proper opportunity to play the sports professionally that they love, yet women are currently effectively denied from playing in the "real" teams altogether. Women's teams exist, yet they are essentially playing in lesser leagues regardless of their individual levels of skill.

Why not separate it solely by skill and aptitude? Yes, the top-tier teams would mostly consist of males, but isn't that still an improvement from how they are currently entirely consisting of males? Then everyone gets to play at the skill level appropriate to them, regardless of their gender.

 

[zumbledum]

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

I was born in a time when we used the word negro , i remember coloured coming and going.

i grew up in upper middle class England a sliced white loaf of an area every single person in my schools was white and middle to upper classed and i never even saw anyone that wasnt in the real world until my late teens. all of my friends grew up in the same area and i had the added influences of a father that is openly racist and a mother who was scared of blacks.

despite all of this none of us grew up to be racists during the university years all was fine then we hit the work environment.

Now a fair few of us are racist, 2 of the people i knew are fully fledged card carrying members of the BNP and would happily go on a KKK lynching holiday weekend. there is only so many times you can watch someone who is at best vastly inferior and usually incompetent get promoted ahead of you and end up with you having to carry their dead weight simply because they are a minority until the discrimination leads you to hate them for it.

you see positive discrimination is a lie , its just discrimination and adding more to the mix makes it worse not better.

 

[DEAD34345]

as far as sports go, look at the olympics. Women at the peak of fitness are no match for men at peak fitness and would never get picked for the top teams because they simply aren't as good as men at that level

Ok then, so why do they need to be specifically withheld from joining male teams anyway? If they're not good enough as you say then they won't be picked anyway. With the Olympics specifically it's more understandable (though I still disagree with it), but that argument doesn't really work at all with team based sports that rely on a mix of skills. It's entirely plausible that a female could be just as good as a top-tier male striker, or goalie, or whatever else in football for example (English football I'm talking about here by the way, I don't know anything about American football).

I can't speak for Europe but in the US, women can join the NFL or the MLB as there is no rule saying they can't. But as I've said, they don't because they won't ever make it. Do you think it's fair for women to never get to play the sport they love simply because.nobody will pick them? To I can't speak for Europe but in the US, women can join the NFL or the MLB as there is no rule saying they can't. But as I've said, they don't because they won't ever make it. Do you think it's fair for women to never get to play the sport they love simply because.nobody will pick them? To me it's more fair to give them they're own league and let them become the champions they deserve to be than to never allow it to happen at all

If they don't have the skill, then they don't deserve to become the champions, regardless of their gender. What about the people who love a sport yet are terrible at it? No-one would ever complain that it's unfair when these people aren't picked in major teams.

If you have a series of leagues/teams/tournaments/whatever for your sport going down in skill levels, then everyone can play at the skill level they are most appropriate for. There's no need to complicate things and unnecessarily discriminate against certain groups by separating everything out into specific sections based on what could be causing that lower skill level.

For example, there's no special basketball leagues for short people. Is that fair? Being short is no more a choice than being a woman.

 

[Realitycrash]

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

There is only so many times you can watch someone who is at best vastly inferior and usually incompetent get promoted ahead of you and end up with you having to carry their dead weight simply because they are a minority until the discrimination leads you to hate them for it.

Yes, read this part of your post again, and then read mine. Then read your part, then read mine. Then facepalm.

 

[soh45400]

Which double standards do you think are necessary? I was just thinking about how female-on-male sexual harassment is often used as a topic of humour for sitcoms, but if it wasn't funny to so many, it wouldn't be used, would it? So I'm not sure whether or not it's bad for them to use it, even if it is a double standard, perhaps based on its rarity.

It is a double standard and it is NOT acceptable. It is barbaric and harmful to the men that are sexually harrassed, just like it used to be to the women when we made fun of them.

And if you think men being harrassed is a rarity, you are quite wrong.

I agree completely.
Whenever I see that in comedies nowadays, I instantly hate the female character that does it, and it happens so often it's as if the guys writing the script think it's comedy gold.

OT: No double-standard should be acceptable. Why should a man be reprimanded for an action, but a woman let off the hook with no repercussions, or vice versa? This sort of conduct is downright wrong, and is detrimental to both parties.

In the real world it might be a problem but on TV ,considering how badly men are usually portrayed, it actually is comedy gold to show female on male harassment to balance it out.
It is funny the way Melissa Joan Heart is shown in Melissa and Joey, finally reversing the stupid male character and smart female character that has dominated TV since the Simpsons and Flintstones and almost every comedy of that type.

 

[hazabaza1]

I like girls with big boobs (not too big) but I don't think guys should have big boobs.

I approve of this.
Otherwise... I dunno. To stick with the boob topic, part of me finds perfect sense in there being a law for women needing to at least wear a bra in public.

 

[Flizzick]

"Necessary double-standard?" Isn't that like, an oxymoron nowadays?

I like girls with big boobs (not too big) but I don't think guys should have big boobs.
Actually it not really that big a double standard, as male boobs can't be used for breast feeding.

Well, I guess we can make an exception in this case. Heh heh, boobs.

 

[hazabaza1]

I like girls with big boobs (not too big) but I don't think guys should have big boobs.

I approve of this.
Otherwise... I dunno. To stick with the boob topic, part of me finds perfect sense in there being a law for women needing to at least wear a bra in public.

If not for decency, then just simply a practical matter of combating the effects of gravity, knowwhatimsayin?

I getcha, my man, I getcha.
Wow, this thread took a very sultry turn.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

-snip-

as far as sports go, look at the olympics. Women at the peak of fitness are no match for men at peak fitness and would never get picked for the top teams because they simply aren't as good as men at that level

Ok then, so why do they need to be specifically withheld from joining male teams anyway? If they're not good enough as you say then they won't be picked anyway. With the Olympics specifically it's more understandable (though I still disagree with it), but that argument doesn't really work at all with team based sports that rely on a mix of skills. It's entirely plausible that a female could be just as good as a top-tier male striker, or goalie, or whatever else in football for example (English football I'm talking about here by the way, I don't know anything about American football).

You aren't seeing the big picture. If women are allowed on mens teams, there will be no point in womens teams, and the VAST majority of female players that aren't as good as the males won't get to play anywhere at all.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Bathrooms
Sports Teams
Childcare

I'm sure there are others, but these are the three that come to me off the top of my head.

Childcare is one of those things that I've read too many news articles about children being cared for by creeps. I don't care if it's right or wrong, but men just need to pick a different profession other than childcare because I will never be comfortable with it. Is it fair? Probably not, but since you can't tell which pool has been proverbially pissed in, it's best not swim in any of them.

Have you perhaps considered that what personally creeps you out should maybe possible not be used to limit the lifes of 50% of the population?

You have a kid and don't want a man to take care of him you either ask for a woman or you take care of them yourself.

"I don't care if it's right or wrong, but men just need to pick a different profession other than childcare because I will never be comfortable with it."

The fuck is wrong with you? You want to throw away all morality and rationality because you're a bit creeped out? That's disgusting. If you're not comfortable with it that's YOUR issue, NOT every man in the worlds.

 

[DEAD34345]

-snip-

as far as sports go, look at the olympics. Women at the peak of fitness are no match for men at peak fitness and would never get picked for the top teams because they simply aren't as good as men at that level

Ok then, so why do they need to be specifically withheld from joining male teams anyway? If they're not good enough as you say then they won't be picked anyway. With the Olympics specifically it's more understandable (though I still disagree with it), but that argument doesn't really work at all with team based sports that rely on a mix of skills. It's entirely plausible that a female could be just as good as a top-tier male striker, or goalie, or whatever else in football for example (English football I'm talking about here by the way, I don't know anything about American football).

You aren't seeing the big picture. If women are allowed on mens teams, there will be no point in womens teams, and the VAST majority of female players that aren't as good as the males won't get to play anywhere at all.

The vast majority of people full stop don't get to play anywhere at all, regardless of gender. That's how teams work, if you're not good enough you don't get in. That isn't a problem. As it is now though, females that are good enough aren't allowed to play in the main leagues regardless, and that is a problem.

Is it unfair that short people don't get into the top basketball teams? No, they're not as good, so they don't get in. If there ever actually is a short person who is amazing at basketball, then he would get in. It's perfectly fair, why shouldn't the same rules apply to males and females? As it is now with separate teams, any women who really are great still aren't allowed to compete properly.

 

[Skratt]

Sports: Yes, males tend to be genetically stronger and fitter than females, but if a female who happens to be just as good at a game as the top males comes along, then why shouldn't they be allowed in the top teams?

Men tend to be genetically stronger, and if we only had co-ed teams, they would tend to be a majority of the players every time. In this case I see no reason not to separate them. Men and women aren't the same and should not be denied proper opportunity to play the sports professionally that they love.

You see, I have pretty much the same opinion, yet come to the opposite conclusion. Men and women should not be denied proper opportunity to play the sports professionally that they love, yet women are currently effectively denied from playing in the "real" teams altogether. Women's teams exist, yet they are essentially playing in lesser leagues regardless of their individual levels of skill.

Why not separate it solely by skill and aptitude? Yes, the top-tier teams would mostly consist of males, but isn't that still an improvement from how they are currently entirely consisting of males? Then everyone gets to play at the skill level appropriate to them, regardless of their gender.

I can see your point of view and I get where you are coming from. A woman who is "as good as the boys" (proverbially speaking) would get a big salary that she deserves just like them, but my concern would be that the women that don't make the cut would then have to compete with those men that also did not make the cut. Given that many sports are based on strength, testosterone wins almost every time and thus combining them would cut women participation greatly. As it currently stands by having two leagues, one male and one female, you effectively get more females that get the opportunity to play.

A more appropriate solution would be to fix the problem of the women leagues not making as much money. However, since money is directly generated based on the desires of the fans, you'd have to update our misogynistic society to one more suiting to equal interest, and I don't see that happening very quickly.

The bottom line is that men and women are different and while I support equal opportunities everywhere we can I do not believe that we should just smash everyone together into a big melting pot in all cases. Square pegs go in square holes, as the saying goes.

 

[Kataskopo]

Male and female sports teams. Men and women have biological differences that make inter-gender sports seem unfair. If men are a little stronger just because they have a Y chromosome, how is that fair to the female athletes? Male and female restrooms are another one too, although I'm not totally sold that its a necessity only that in my society its a necessity.

Some people are born with more aptitude to be athletic than others. If you're born to be a scrawny short dude, then that isn't really any more fair than being born without a Y chromosome is it? It's not like they're going to make a pro basketball league for people born without the tall-gene. Why is making a division based on gender more acceptable than divisions based on height, ethnicity, aptitude, whatever?

It's not that I really mind, or would even like to change it, but I just wonder why this particular double standard is so universally accepted and usually not even questioned.

I don't really think any double standards are strictly necessary. On the other hand, I'm not really convinced that ignoring or trying to remove (virtually) all differences between men and women would be desirable.

But in sports, they do "discriminate" on tall ones, for example. If you are in a basketball team and you are small, chances are you are not gonna get picked unless you are very skilled.

And that, I think, is the biggest problem when talking about sports and gender standards.

If the average woman is smaller and weaker than the average man, then the average woman will be picked less for sports that require size ans strength.
And you wont start letting in girls (or boys) just to have "gender equality".

In other regards, like bathrooms or employment, double standards are probably not necessary, but how do you handle sports, where those sort-of gender defined attributes are the biggest measure of worth?

I don't see anything wrong with encouragement to certain gender, like one poster said about male nurses.

 

[Thespian]

-snip-

Ooh, I got one! Where does the post-op transsexual go? ?

Which double standards do you think are necessary? I was just thinking about how female-on-male sexual harassment is often used as a topic of humour for sitcoms, but if it wasn't funny to so many, it wouldn't be used, would it? Admittedly, that kind of sexual harassment is pretty rare. So I'm not sure whether or not it's bad for them to use it, even if it is a double standard.

Fuck that double standard. Even in two and a half men its honestly disgusting. She gets a free pass to show up, demand money and leave, while if a male character was doing that the show would be burned to the ground.

Damn straight. Let alone offensive it's just damn annoying.

 

[ElPatron]

Positive discrimination

Yes, let's shit up the way things are (not too well) just for the sake of having a false sense of "equality".

Also, discrimination = not equality. It's perpetuating the thing you're trying to fight.

By 10, though, you ought to be going to the toilets by yourself. I don't know any parent who'd argue against that, unless they're ridiculously overprotective and paranoid.

Or maybe there are just a lot of dangerous people around? Or maybe because the 10 year old child can be intimidated by the adults there?

If I were ten and walked into a restroom where there were goths, guys with pedophile glasses or anything that might intimidate a kid, I would go DEFCON-fucking-ONE and suspend all excretory functions for half a day.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

Positive discrimination always has a negative factor for the other party.

In your scenario isnt the person not hired under negative descrimination? Is there a difference between hiring someone for being female and NOT hiring someone for being male? From the person who isnt hired's perspective is there a difference? If you are denied a job because the competition is female its practically the same as being denied because you are male.

In the same way slavery was positive discrimination for white people. All discrimination have a positive and negative aspect for two different peoples.

 

[Jordi]

Male and female sports teams. Men and women have biological differences that make inter-gender sports seem unfair. If men are a little stronger just because they have a Y chromosome, how is that fair to the female athletes? Male and female restrooms are another one too, although I'm not totally sold that its a necessity only that in my society its a necessity.

Some people are born with more aptitude to be athletic than others. If you're born to be a scrawny short dude, then that isn't really any more fair than being born without a Y chromosome is it? It's not like they're going to make a pro basketball league for people born without the tall-gene. Why is making a division based on gender more acceptable than divisions based on height, ethnicity, aptitude, whatever?

It's not that I really mind, or would even like to change it, but I just wonder why this particular double standard is so universally accepted and usually not even questioned.

I don't really think any double standards are strictly necessary. On the other hand, I'm not really convinced that ignoring or trying to remove (virtually) all differences between men and women would be desirable.

But in sports, they do "discriminate" on tall ones, for example. If you are in a basketball team and you are small, chances are you are not gonna get picked unless you are very skilled.

And that, I think, is the biggest problem when talking about sports and gender standards.

If the average woman is smaller and weaker than the average man, then the average woman will be picked less for sports that require size ans strength.
And you wont start letting in girls (or boys) just to have "gender equality".

In other regards, like bathrooms or employment, double standards are probably not necessary, but how do you handle sports, where those sort-of gender defined attributes are the biggest measure of worth?

I don't see anything wrong with encouragement to certain gender, like one poster said about male nurses.

I think the "issue" is that we are more focused on gender than on other, maybe equally (un)fair things. Sure, if we would have all unisex sports, then the number of men at the top would vastly outnumber the number of women. Just like in professional basketball and volleyball the number of tall people vastly outnumber the number of short people, and the number of black people in the Olympic 100m dash final vastly outnumbers the number of white/asian people (although that may also be cultural).

So why do we have separate pro-leagues for men and women, but not for tall and short people? How is being born without a Y-chromosome any less fair (in this regard) than being born without the gene to be tall? Why is it worse to discriminate against women than it is to discriminate against short people?

And by the way, it wouldn't even be gender/height discrimination. That's another problem I sometimes have with discrimination debates: whenever one group is not as well represented somewhere, some people immediately assume that they're being discriminated against based on their distinguishing characteristic (e.g. gender), instead of based on some grounds that we're more comfortable to use for discrimination (e.g. skill, interest).

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Positive discrimination in the work-place (i.e if two applications for a certain job is equal, and the interview with the two goes equally well, the job should go to whoever is getting said positive discrimination. Usually female, but male as well in some areas, like childcare), until we reach an equal enough society where it isn't needed.

There is only so many times you can watch someone who is at best vastly inferior and usually incompetent get promoted ahead of you and end up with you having to carry their dead weight simply because they are a minority until the discrimination leads you to hate them for it.

Yes, read this part of your post again, and then read mine. Then read your part, then read mine. Then facepalm.

Why? He's just saying that discrimination of any kind is bad.

OP:Bathrooms, dressing rooms, sports teams, ...those are the first things that come to mind.