JMeganSnow said:
ninjablu said:
So let me get this straight. You think that I should, on a usual basis, hold the door open for you and be sensitive to the fact that you are a woman when talking to you in the office, and that you think I should go out of my way to treat you better (like, say, not cussing with) than just a guy I share a cubicle with, but then when it comes promotion time you and I should be equal, although the only thing you've done to reciprocate me going out of my way is a smile here and there.
Do you see the double standard yet?
And I am so confused by your second paragraph. When did personal economics become a job as a firefighter?
So not cussing and opening the occasional door consists of "going out of your way" and somehow makes you a worthier human being, but a woman taking time out of *her* day to express appreciation *doesn't*? Do you see the double standard THERE?
Idiot. No wonder you're having such a tough time comprehending my firefighter analogy. One of the areas where women of the feminist type complain most stringently about "discrimination" against women is in tough physical jobs where most women just aren't up to the work. (The women who CAN do the work generally aren't interested in it.) So instead of accepting that there are always going to be a lot more male firefighters, they demand that women be held to lower standards than men in hiring practices until "parity" is achieved.
How this is going to help someone trapped inside a burning building I do not know, but a woman will Have A Job and apparently that's all that matters to feminists. Since most personal economics consist of having a job, the analogy is pretty damn apt.
No, my double standard analogy does not make me a worthier human being. But frankly, no, smiling at me just because I was polite is not equal, especially considering that you are already expected to smile and as I'm holding the door for you, I am smiling myself. What, you think I'm going to hold the door for you and scowl as your walk past?
Let me try this with out incurring a flame war, since that's what I'm trying to not do.
If I, as a human being, make space for another, different type of human being, on a regular basis, but it is not expected that this other human being do anything notable to make space for myself as a human being, but then this other human being also expects that when the time comes, they will be held on the same pane as myself, even though I am put under more constraints as to what I should do than this other human being is. They expect that the only manner by which they are judged is by work, and certainly if they work harder for it then they deserve the promotion/pay raise/whatever, but if we are equal in our outputs, and I am the one going out and doing extra to accommodate other human beings while not being compensated by any sort of politeness nor expecting any compensation in return, then no, I don't feel like there is an equality there.
If one worker has a partner who is mentally disabled, and the worker has to constantly aid the second one in movement although the second person is good at his job, then the first one is doing more and should be regarded in a more favorable light.
If one worker is consistently polite to the other worker, follows an explicit set of rules that the other one is not really bound by, and they both do well at their job, then they can not be judged on the same level because they do not operate on the same level.
Does that make a little more sense?
Does it show the double standard or expecting, and then expecting again rather than giving?
Certainly some males do this too, but I'm going to guess these are the minority.
And as far as your Fireman's analogy goes, I agree with you. It's the same reason women are kept out of combat infantry in the armies. They just can't push themselves as far or as fast as men can. I'd almost argue that women should be kept to more desk-type jobs in police departments too, except I know one and I'm fairly certain she could kick my ass from here to Helsinki and not break a sweat.