Viewing Thread:
"I'm not a sexist, but..."

Men and Women are different! C'mon, men are (Naturally stronger than women, but women have abilities better than men (no not ironing or any other crappy joke of the same theme))

A few years back Women were'nt allowed in the fireservice, now some of them had a sh!tfit and eventually the goverment said yes, now women can be firefighters, only problem, mens natural ability to be taller therefor stronger, made them better than MOST women, therefor, women failed the tests and couldnt become firefighters. Fair enough, we have these tests to make sure people are capable of saving and protecting lives...the goverment make the test ALOT easier for women, giving them a pass rate, therefor, more women are now firefighters, therefor my life is to be saved when a 5ft 5" woman carrys me out of a window ever her shoulder...?

Well then, that seems a little unfair, but get this, the women were demanding EQUAL rights! EQUAL. So, what do they do? They go out and make 'Diamond', the only car insurance JUST for women. That doesnt seem fantastically equal to me. But, men, we keep schtoomp, because we cant be bothered to argue. Woman howerever, if this was an advert saying 'Male onyl car insurance' or in other words 'Because its women who cause crashes and raise the rates', would get it banned. Now I dont mind the service, all I'm saying is Ladies, for god's sakes make up your mind, which is it you want, equal rights or privilages for different sexes?

Your veiws?

Simon Says wrote:
> Light wrote:
> I think I've now decided that yes, I am sexist, but that its okay to
> be sexist on grounds that I'm not a *complete* moron.
>
>
> Heh. The thing is, you've only picked one particular kind of
> activity
> that is weighted towards men. What if you were to pick another one;
> could you then say that women are definitely superior?
>
> I dunno...I basically find prejudging someone cos of their
> race/sex/colour a bit unsavoury. You can't make a sweeping statement
> like "X is better than Y" because at the end of the day,
> it
> sounds like uninformed ignorance.
>
> Erm...that's not a dig at you by the way Simon says!
>
> Yes, I have picked something that is weighted towards men, but that's
> because when thinking about a counter example I thought I might get a
> slating for saying a woman might win a bigger breasts contest.
>
> Perhaps I should say "Men are bigger perverts than women"
> I wonder how many guys or gals are going to be up in arms about that
> one?
>
> That's how I arrived at the conclusion that women's advantages are
> less easily quantified, so it's harder to say "Women are
> undoubtedly more intelligent than men"
>
> and no, you can't say that "X is better than Y" but you can
> say that "X is better than Y at task A".
>
> For example, I'd say that native africans are better are running
> short distances very quickly because they have a longer achilles
> tendon, and have more of a certain type of muscle fiber. Is that a
> racist comment? yes, because I am discriminating upon the basis of
> race. Does the fact that its a racist comment make it any less true?
> No.
>
> I once was astounded because a friend, well, no, a "person I
> met" said that all black zambezians are criminals, and he wasn't
> being racist because it is true. Whether it is true or not is a
> different matter, but he was being racist.
>
> I guess you could even go as far as to say "all men have penii
> (or pen!ses, I'm not sure, but anyhoo, they have one each)" and
> that's a sexist comment because it discriminates upon the basis of
> sex. It's also pretty redundant because it is true purely because of
> the vocabulary used, where a man (defined as a thing with a pen!s)
> has a pen!s tells us nothing new about the world.
>
> So the way I see it, all people are different, people are members of
> many groups such as race, creed, age and sex, and those things are
> part of what makes them who they are. These labels impose facts, and
> more often trends upon them, so to say a persons sex is male say that
> he definitely has a pen!s, and he is probably of a stronger build
> that a female. All of these things a X-ist comments, but they are
> also true. Therefore any advantage at a given activity that these
> facts or trends yield mean that its true to say the X is better at A
> than Y.
>
> X-ist. Yes, but is it wrong?
>
> I don't think that makes me a bad person.


My next point would be; what does it matter? In general you could say that men are better than women at task X, but you'll always find women who are better than most men at said task. And vice-versa. What I'm driving at is that any attempt to make a sweeping statement based on prejudice and 'bloke said down the pub' anecdotal evidence is doomed to failure because it ignores the large numbers of both sexes who do not conform to the stereotypes.

As a side point, statements of biological fact (he has a pen!s, that persons skin colour is black) are not anything-ist. They're facts that can't really be disputed, so it's a little disingenuous to try and apply them to the debate.

Blank wrote:
> And in tennis competitions as well - women now get payed the same
> amount as men for taking part (at Wimbledon anyway), but only have to
> play three set matches rather than five. What happened to equal work
> for equal pay?

Next they'll be getting bigger raquets! See this is something that bothers me, after demanding equal rights, when the women who wanted them get goin, they want it made easier for them so its not quite equal.

E.g. Fire service, Tennis

Lil Ginge wrote:
> I think point is whethe ryou truly mean it and are being perfectly
> serious.
> Also the way in which you deal with your beliefs be it in a hostile
> or a considerative manner

And that last comment he made was a stupid jokey remark. Wasn't pointed at anyone, just a silly joke...

It's just when a joke like that aimed at about 30 million people is deemed to have been severly sexist by ONE person, we will have a problem.

And in tennis competitions as well - women now get payed the same amount as men for taking part (at Wimbledon anyway), but only have to play three set matches rather than five. What happened to equal work for equal pay?

Kiriyama wrote:
> Unbeliever wrote:
> In December new laws will be passed giving homosexual/lesbians the
> same legal footing that heterosexuals receive in the workplace. Just
> thought I'd mention it even though it has no real bearing on the
> thrust of the debate.
>
> And rightly so. I don't see why it should even be an issue. It should
> be accepted by everyone, such as gay marriages etc.

Except it makes it seem like they are being given rights specially, surely in the workplace everyone is just an employee, so it should be employees's rights, which already exist.

Like it or not, there will never be a time when everyone accepts homosexuals and especially marriage as defined by religion.

A lot of equal rights laws seem aimed at telling people how to think, which isn't the answer to anything.

phi11ip wrote:
> I was told on holiday by some woman that I should get used to being
> wrong because women are always right...
>
> Did I go crying and jumping around because it was sexist?
>
> No.
>
> I just laughed, it was a simple joke and it didn't affect my life at
> all. Yet I bet if I said it to someone who got offended they'd launch
> a law-suit against me for sexual harrassment on holiday...


yes. My boyfriend always makes petty sexist jokes. I make them too -

I think point is whethe ryou truly mean it and are being perfectly serious.
Also the way in which you deal with your beliefs be it in a hostile or a considerative manner

phi11ip wrote:
> I was told on holiday by some woman that I should get used to being
> wrong because women are always right...
>
> Did I go crying and jumping around because it was sexist?
>
> No.
>
> I just laughed, it was a simple joke and it didn't affect my life at
> all. Yet I bet if I said it to someone who got offended they'd launch
> a law-suit against me for sexual harrassment on holiday...

*Phones lawyer*

I was told on holiday by some woman that I should get used to being wrong because women are always right...

Did I go crying and jumping around because it was sexist?

No.

I just laughed, it was a simple joke and it didn't affect my life at all. Yet I bet if I said it to someone who got offended they'd launch a law-suit against me for sexual harrassment on holiday...

Light wrote:
> I think I've now decided that yes, I am sexist, but that its okay to
> be sexist on grounds that I'm not a *complete* moron.
>
>
> Heh. The thing is, you've only picked one particular kind of activity
> that is weighted towards men. What if you were to pick another one;
> could you then say that women are definitely superior?
>
> I dunno...I basically find prejudging someone cos of their
> race/sex/colour a bit unsavoury. You can't make a sweeping statement
> like "X is better than Y" because at the end of the day, it
> sounds like uninformed ignorance.
>
> Erm...that's not a dig at you by the way Simon says!

Yes, I have picked something that is weighted towards men, but that's because when thinking about a counter example I thought I might get a slating for saying a woman might win a bigger breasts contest.

Perhaps I should say "Men are bigger perverts than women"
I wonder how many guys or gals are going to be up in arms about that one?

That's how I arrived at the conclusion that women's advantages are less easily quantified, so it's harder to say "Women are undoubtedly more intelligent than men"

and no, you can't say that "X is better than Y" but you can say that "X is better than Y at task A".

For example, I'd say that native africans are better are running short distances very quickly because they have a longer achilles tendon, and have more of a certain type of muscle fiber. Is that a racist comment? yes, because I am discriminating upon the basis of race. Does the fact that its a racist comment make it any less true? No.

I once was astounded because a friend, well, no, a "person I met" said that all black zambezians are criminals, and he wasn't being racist because it is true. Whether it is true or not is a different matter, but he was being racist.

I guess you could even go as far as to say "all men have penii (or pen!ses, I'm not sure, but anyhoo, they have one each)" and that's a sexist comment because it discriminates upon the basis of sex. It's also pretty redundant because it is true purely because of the vocabulary used, where a man (defined as a thing with a pen!s) has a pen!s tells us nothing new about the world.

So the way I see it, all people are different, people are members of many groups such as race, creed, age and sex, and those things are part of what makes them who they are. These labels impose facts, and more often trends upon them, so to say a persons sex is male say that he definitely has a pen!s, and he is probably of a stronger build that a female. All of these things a X-ist comments, but they are also true. Therefore any advantage at a given activity that these facts or trends yield mean that its true to say the X is better at A than Y.

X-ist. Yes, but is it wrong?

I don't think that makes me a bad person.

It's all to do with the wording.

Well off topic, but if the dossier wasn't claimed to have been "sexed-up", instead being called glorified or whatever, the press wouldn't have as big a field day over it.