|
|
Quote: This implies you have no respect for men
No. It is the only answer your neutralized brain can understand.
I respect both men and women and respect their differences. It's not hard to understand. You want to neutralize gender. I recognize it as being critical to who we are. There's the difference.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: And what is the difference that makes a woman need a seat more than a man?
Who says they need one? As already pointed out, does your wife NEED you to buy her flowers? Does she NEED you to open the door for her? No, you do it because it's polite.
Yes, I open the door for men too. You are so extreme. Just because I say I would give up my seat to a woman you jump to the other end of the spectrum and claim that I wouldn't do the same for a man. You are nothing but loud arrogant claims, which are NEVER even right. I wouldn't waste my time with you if it weren't so fun to see how far off you can get. Each time you amaze me at how narrow minded you are.
Quote: If you say it is because of respect, that implies more respect for one over the other.
No, it means different respect, which I ALREADY ANSWERED.  You just love to fight. It's so fun.
Stop being a wussy and man up.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: So what do you do? Tell the responders to man up
You're the only one who I said that to. No one else was being a cry baby sissy.
You criticized me for picking a specific definition to support my argument. OF COURSE I DID. IT WAS THE SAME DEFINITION USED IN THE ARTICLE IN QUESTION. CONTEXT. CONTEXT. CONTEXT.
You troll around looking for posts where you can take it out of context and run the opposite direction. Some day when we meet I feel I will be able to understand why you do it. Until then, you are my comic relief.
Quote: OK so explain this "different" respect.
You wouldn't understand. You think genders are equal in every way.
Quote: which implies you think women are "wussy".
You definitely have to donate your brain to science. The things you take out of what I say are insane.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
While it is true that sexism is normally negative, the treating of someone differently because of their sex, is discrimination, by definition.
From your link, indeed "attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles." not negative attitudes, just attitudes.
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: From your link, indeed "attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles." not negative attitudes, just attitudes.
The definitions go together. They are not separate. They are negative attitudes.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
The two definitions are numbered, you may notice, this doesn't mean you need to add them together, it means they are discrete definitions.
If sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex." (note the OR not AND)
and discrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex:"
and by opening jars for women and not men you are doing so because of some perceived (if not by you personally, then by those who, in earlier times, deemed opening a jar for a woman to be polite) weakness then you are stereotyping women at the least and, it could be argued, discriminating based purely on their sex.
Would you open a jar for this lady[^] for example?
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Would you open a jar for this lady[^] for example?
No way. I would run the other way.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: it plainly is sexist to offer a female a seat just because of her sex
what if shes good looking and you're hoping for her number?
bryce
MCAD
---
|
|
|
|
|
bryce wrote: what if shes good looking and you're hoping for her number?
then offer her a seat on your lap.
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
Of course you offer her the seat.
Can't look down her shirt unless she's below your eye level.
|
|
|
|
|
on more than one occasion I have offered my seat on the train to pregnant ladies.
Only to find out they were not (as I incorrectly assessed) pregnant.
Bryce
MCAD
---
|
|
|
|
|
Better take the safe route then. Don't want to be labeled an insensitive sexist.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
bryce wrote: Only to find out they were not (as I incorrectly assessed) pregnant.
Must have been a long train ride 
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
At least it is a bit different from when you hear they saying:
"Don't treat me different in this and that case because I am an equal".
and 5 minutes later
"Treat me like this and that differently from man because I'm a lady".
|
|
|
|
|
Ya, that is annoying. I don't think most women fall into that category individually but when you see the opinions of women on the whole, this is true.
However, I will continue to be a man no matter what their opinion is.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I'll bite again.
So if it's polite to offer a girl a seat, is it impolite not to?
If it's the case that you consider it impolite, do you still consider it rude or impolite when a woman doesn't offer you her seat?
If (you consider it rude for a woman to not offer you her seat != true)
{
it would appear to be because you're sexist - you believe in a double-standard based on sex.
I don't have a problem with that, it's a socially accepted norm. Just don't call a spade a fork.
}
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin
|
|
|
|
|
The definition of sexism in the article is one of devaluing the sex, not just treating them differently. By that definition, offering them a seat is not sexist.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously?
You're just going to dodge the question by repeating the same thing you've said and I've read already, the best part of 1/2 a dozen times. Perhaps I overestimated you?
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Perhaps I overestimated you?
Careful. Leave Middle School out of this.
What question? "do you still consider it rude or impolite when a woman doesn't offer you her seat?" Sorry it seemed like it was already answered and irrelevant so I didn't answer. If it's that important to you I'll gladly answer or if there was a different question ask again.
No, I do not consider it rude when a woman does not offer me her seat. If she did, I would refuse anyway. But again, you were using a definition of sexism that is out of context of this discussion. It is not devaluing the male sex when a woman does not offer him a seat.
Devaluing a gender. That is the definition of context.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Hadn't realized that telling someone you'd held in high esteem, that said esteem may be misplaced was a middle-school trait. I've only known it to express praise and a public doubt of the worthiness of that praise.
I've actually found it to be an especially valuable tool when one wants to elicit a further response from someone that seems stubborn. It was clearly effective here!
Anyway, I'd like to thank-you for your response. I appreciate the fact that you've had many opinions expressed in this thread which don't mirror your own - that certainly doesn't energize most people, quite the contrary in my experience.
While it is abundantly clear that neither of us will persuade the other to adopt our own understanding of the term, any dictionary you care to consult agrees with the position that I and countless others maintain, however I do concede that if one was to only permit the definition you've chosen, you would be absolutely correct and by extension, I would be wrong.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sexism[^]
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism[^]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sexist[^]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism[^]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexism?s=t[^]
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/sexism?q=sexism[^]
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexism[^]
Note: none of those links claim it to be exclusively. Predominantly, yes. Exclusively, nope.
In closing - a bloke and a chick get on at the same stop. You offer your seat to the chick. That's sexist against the bloke. I.e negative sexism for him, positive sexism for her. Well, in the accepted (and legal) definition of the word anyway.
Anyway, please, accept a +vote for being such a trooper. A fiercely contested debate is often invigorating.
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin
|
|
|
|
|
I don't disagree with anything you are saying. My whole point, which got derailed somewhere and not just with you, was that the author of the article was claiming that had someone offered the lady a seat it would have been sexist in the sense that it would devalue the female sex.
Do you think offering your seat to a female devalues her gender?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Ping! The penny has just dropped for me. This has just become an increasingly interesting exercise in communication and on one's perspective of an issue.
No, I don't feel that offering a seat to a woman devalues her gender, though that doesn't change my opinion that it's still a sexist act if the same courtesy wouldn't be extended to a fella.
The part I'm finding most interesting is that each of us appears to think the opinion of the other is more-or-less reasonable. The source of contention, the seed of debate it seems, comes from the terms with which we view the situation.
I say it's sexist since it's preferential treatment, based on gender.
(I think?)
You say it's not sexist, since there's not been what you (or I) consider an act that devalues the gender.
I think the author is a bit of a nut-job & am perfectly prepared to say I'm entirely uncomfortable with her article and it's core assertions.
I'm not sure if you could say we disagree or agree on the matter, I'm really not. I think such a simplistic label would do us each a disservice. I can definitely say that it's given a valuable lesson that what we think someone thinks may very well not be the case - even when it seems abundantly clear, gentle probing questions can certainly reveal unexpected answers. 
I don't feel this applies to either of us in our communication with one another, but I can't help but be reminded of an old gem:
"A little old lady once said to me, always make your words sweet my dear - for you never know when you'll have to eat them"
Thanks for the discussion.  (sorry for the derailment)
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
