|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. An actual intellectual conversation. I have spent too much time in the soapbox dealing with juvenile responses. Your's is very refreshing. Thank you. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: you are claiming they are inferior to the male
No. You are claiming that. I am claiming it is polite.
Quote: I am sure our slave owning ancestors and oppressive husbands also felt they were not.
There's the middle school Collin. Zowie.
Quote: that it is devaluing to someone though.
Yes. Which I think is idiotic if you think offering your seat to a woman devalues her or anyone else.
Do you open the door for your wife? Do you buy her flowers? Why, she could buy them herself. You are devaluing her claiming that she can't buy them as good as you can or that she isn't strong enough to open her own door.
Common decency apparently is not so common anymore.
Be a man!
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
By trying to neutralize gender you are the one devaluing both males and females. Embrace the differences. Be grateful for them.
Man up. Respect women because they are women. Holding the door for a woman devalues her gender? That is so stupid.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: What does that even mean?
Proof of my point.
Quote: Why should they get more or less respect because of their gender?
Further proof.
Quote: If done simply because she is a woman yes.
And yet more proof.
Quote: Call it what you want
OK. I call it being polite. Or being a man. Take your pick. Both work.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nothing new? OK.
When you got something new that's funny let me know. All these jokes are worn out by you.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Still refusing to answer.
OK. If you say so Collin. Sure.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, not at all.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I still have the last word because an icon is not a word.
Burn!
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
