First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply U.S. meaning for "equality" unrealistic?
10262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/15/15 , edited 10/15/15

Kitahoshi_Hazel wrote:


The ways in which I think a little special treatment in warranted is that I've heard there aren't very many female sized uniforms and having an ill fitting uniform makes it very difficult to perform your duties so I wouldn't say that eliminating them is a good idea. I think there's an element of common sense involved when it comes to "special treatment".



You've heard wrong. There are female uniforms (or at least there were when I was in). They even had maternity uniforms when I was in. And that was the Marine Corps, who are notorious for sucking in regards to gear and equipment. I'd be extremely surprised if other branches did not have female uniforms..

So.... guess I'm calling BS on that.
7253 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / "10/10" - IGN
Offline
Posted 10/15/15 , edited 10/15/15
I'm not sure, but it seems like your chosen form of inequality is specifically physical, like race or gender specific (though you only allude to that). So I'll try to address it from that view. Yes it's true that people really aren't literally equal, and I can understand that there are times when treating people completely equally from a physical standpoint might not make sense in some situations.

A classic example of this is the fact that sports in our country is completely divided by sex, males and females do not officially play sports together because it's considered unfair, and I completely agree with that. However, I would in no way degrade, lessen, or diminish females or their position in life just because of their physical stature only. If a girl wanted to be a football quarterback or something like that, I would be supportive regardless of the fact that I think she stands no chance against 7 foot 300 pound linebackers.

That being said, the American "equality", which blindly refuses to acknowledge the differences when you say you perceive differences, are just people trying to treat each other as equally as they can. People become concerned that if they acknowledge that someone is different or perhaps "inferior", they may think of them as less, and not treat them fairly. As for the example of race that you have given, genetically speaking, a persons race does not affect any of their traits as a person. If these smaller Japanese kids had been raised on a diet heavy in dairy, meats, and cheeses like Americans have been for decades, they too would be larger physically. The acknowledgment that they are in fact different is by no means a racial thing, so much as it is an acknowledgment of what is true about the situation.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/15/15
4911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Canada
Offline
Posted 10/15/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:

You've heard wrong. There are female uniforms (or at least there were when I was in). They even had maternity uniforms when I was in. And that was the Marine Corps, who are notorious for sucking in regards to gear and equipment. I'd be extremely surprised if other branches did not have female uniforms..

So.... guess I'm calling BS on that.


I'm relieved. It seems pretty inefficient to hire someone for a job and then not provide the proper uniform just because you'd have to order a new one.
10262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/15/15

Kitahoshi_Hazel wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:

You've heard wrong. There are female uniforms (or at least there were when I was in). They even had maternity uniforms when I was in. And that was the Marine Corps, who are notorious for sucking in regards to gear and equipment. I'd be extremely surprised if other branches did not have female uniforms..

So.... guess I'm calling BS on that.


I'm relieved. It seems pretty inefficient to hire someone for a job and then not provide the proper uniform just because you'd have to order a new one.


Well... to be fair, they probably had to buy them themselves... but that's nothing to do with gender. I had to buy my own uniforms, too.
4911 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Canada
Offline
Posted 10/15/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:

Well... to be fair, they probably had to buy them themselves... but that's nothing to do with gender. I had to buy my own uniforms, too.


That's probably for the best.

24913 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / England
Offline
Posted 10/15/15 , edited 10/15/15
Yes, I do believe people must be treated fairly, but there are things that can only be earned and mere "diversity" shouldn't be a factor in propelling people to success. On my way to class I often read the newspaper on the bus and there's always someone expressing their disgust that women are especially treated as second-class in the workplace... Particularly concerning higher paid and more prestigious positions. I had a mild scoff recalling the fact that I've now studied two of what you'd consider marketable degrees, Economics and Automive Engineering. The gender ratio for both courses were 8:2 in favor of males, and the girls that did do those courses were almost all foreign. I didn't click at the first but after being exposed to more and more of these calls for the industry to be more diverse I began to take notice. The majority of the female students would often take courses such as Nursery, Midwifery, Peace Studies and Gender Studies. Now, I have absolutely no problems with these courses, it's your life do as you want to live as happily as you want, however it's become an eyesore to read these complaints from these women in higher paid jobs blasting their own companies as sexist for not hiring enough women who don't actually have the qualifications for these positions, or even want them.
g_f 
25169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / M / South Carolina
Offline
Posted 10/15/15 , edited 10/17/15


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Equality means everybody should have the same rights under the law and constitution rights. It means the same opportunities looking for jobs. The same respect. No more. It is not so complicated to understand we should agree about equality. Same rights, same opportunities for everybody. That is it. We are the people.
10262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/15/15 , edited 10/17/15

Insanerino wrote:

I'm not sure, but it seems like your chosen form of inequality is specifically physical, like race or gender specific (though you only allude to that). So I'll try to address it from that view. Yes it's true that people really aren't literally equal, and I can understand that there are times when treating people completely equally from a physical standpoint might not make sense in some situations.

A classic example of this is the fact that sports in our country is completely divided by sex, males and females do not officially play sports together because it's considered unfair, and I completely agree with that. However, I would in no way degrade, lessen, or diminish females or their position in life just because of their physical stature only. If a girl wanted to be a football quarterback or something like that, I would be supportive regardless of the fact that I think she stands no chance against 7 foot 300 pound linebackers.

That being said, the American "equality", which blindly refuses to acknowledge the differences when you say you perceive differences, are just people trying to treat each other as equally as they can. People become concerned that if they acknowledge that someone is different or perhaps "inferior", they may think of them as less, and not treat them fairly. As for the example of race that you have given, genetically speaking, a persons race does not affect any of their traits as a person. If these smaller Japanese kids had been raised on a diet heavy in dairy, meats, and cheeses like Americans have been for decades, they too would be larger physically. The acknowledgment that they are in fact different is by no means a racial thing, so much as it is an acknowledgment of what is true about the situation.


The fact that you're saying it is all diet is just sad. This is exactly what I'm talking about. It's like we force ourselves to keep these blinders on.

I'm going to give you facts. This is probably going to piss people off, because it will be touching on a stereotype... but, it's fact, and we're all trying to deny things like this.

I'm sure everyone has heard the stereotype that black people are not good swimmers. Most would assume this is BS, but it is not. It is rooted in truth.

See, black people, on average, have a greater muscle and bone density than other races. Being denser makes it much more difficult to float, which in turn makes swimming more challenging. Is that universal? Not at all. But it is very true for the average.

And that's simple science. It has nothing to do with me being racist.

However, when there are differences in the average, obviously there are going to be in the top fields of sports, etc.

Now, not all these differences are purely physical, no. I do try to stay away from the mental, because that REALLY pisses people off.

But, as an example, studies have shown that Jewish people have better judgement and self-control than most other races. Though, that gets a little muddied, because of mating choices and how much of it has been taught in their culture. However... it is true.

We just don't like to admit things like this, because, hey we're "equal."

Sorry to offend people here. I really think supremacy is just as stupid as this BS. However, I cannot deny truth in favor of feelings.
3059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/15/15
Ok, this may get a bit ramble-y, but I'm going to try to express myself properly here.

Main thesis:
I don't believe that the U.S. meaning for equality is unrealistic, because the "important" parts of people are universal.

Since this conversation seems to be talking about physical abilities and attributes, instead of avenues where I am a bit more versed in, I will try to stick to the discussion but may wander out on occasion.

When talking about a group of people being, be they of differing genders, races, or backgrounds, you are putting all of these individuals into a category. Not allowing for deviation inside that category. What I mean is that, while 99% of -certain group- maybe be bad at -certain activity- (Which, personally, I don't believe the numbers are quite THAT over the top), if you instantly dismiss that whole category as "Not being able to preform", then you deny that 1% of the chance to prove themselves. When judging an individual (which is all you are really supposed to do) the only thing you should take into consideration is that particular individual's skill. Having an arbitrary limit on race or gender (or age, but I don't really have many good examples on age discrimination on me) limits the potential to find skilled people in that field.

Going back to the main thesis: The only thing that anyone cares about (in a workplace/sporting setting, but I apply it universally. Makes life easier.) is "What can you do for me?" What skills and abilities can you bring to make my life better/easier/more interesting? Things like race, gender, socio-economic class, background(-ish. That one is a huge can of worms) and age don't really impact on the "What can you do for me?" imperative that should be in any culture.

I should point out, however, I'm not from the U.S. I live in a country with 97% homogeneity, so seeing people discarded based on their race or socio-economic status is frustratingly common here. I am not sure how prevalent it is in the U.S., but I assume it is fairly common from the news articles I have come across.
10262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/15/15

Crylliac wrote:

Ok, this may get a bit ramble-y, but I'm going to try to express myself properly here.

Main thesis:
I don't believe that the U.S. meaning for equality is unrealistic, because the "important" parts of people are universal.

Since this conversation seems to be talking about physical abilities and attributes, instead of avenues where I am a bit more versed in, I will try to stick to the discussion but may wander out on occasion.

When talking about a group of people being, be they of differing genders, races, or backgrounds, you are putting all of these individuals into a category. Not allowing for deviation inside that category. What I mean is that, while 99% of -certain group- maybe be bad at -certain activity- (Which, personally, I don't believe the numbers are quite THAT over the top), if you instantly dismiss that whole category as "Not being able to preform", then you deny that 1% of the chance to prove themselves. When judging an individual (which is all you are really supposed to do) the only thing you should take into consideration is that particular individual's skill. Having an arbitrary limit on race or gender (or age, but I don't really have many good examples on age discrimination on me) limits the potential to find skilled people in that field.

Going back to the main thesis: The only thing that anyone cares about (in a workplace/sporting setting, but I apply it universally. Makes life easier.) is "What can you do for me?" What skills and abilities can you bring to make my life better/easier/more interesting? Things like race, gender, socio-economic class, background(-ish. That one is a huge can of worms) and age don't really impact on the "What can you do for me?" imperative that should be in any culture.

I should point out, however, I'm not from the U.S. I live in a country with 97% homogeneity, so seeing people discarded based on their race or socio-economic status is frustratingly common here. I am not sure how prevalent it is in the U.S., but I assume it is fairly common from the news articles I have come across.


I agree with what you are saying. We should not treat people differently based on a demographic they belong to.

However, that was not my point.

Sure, treat everyone the same. Just don't pretend like differences do not exist at all.

Being tolerant does not mean ignoring differences, it means accepting them. In the US, we just try to ignore as much as possible. And that is what gets on my nerves.
3059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/15/15 , edited 10/15/15

HolyDrumstick wrote:


Crylliac wrote:

Ok, this may get a bit ramble-y, but I'm going to try to express myself properly here.

Main thesis:
I don't believe that the U.S. meaning for equality is unrealistic, because the "important" parts of people are universal.

Since this conversation seems to be talking about physical abilities and attributes, instead of avenues where I am a bit more versed in, I will try to stick to the discussion but may wander out on occasion.

When talking about a group of people being, be they of differing genders, races, or backgrounds, you are putting all of these individuals into a category. Not allowing for deviation inside that category. What I mean is that, while 99% of -certain group- maybe be bad at -certain activity- (Which, personally, I don't believe the numbers are quite THAT over the top), if you instantly dismiss that whole category as "Not being able to preform", then you deny that 1% of the chance to prove themselves. When judging an individual (which is all you are really supposed to do) the only thing you should take into consideration is that particular individual's skill. Having an arbitrary limit on race or gender (or age, but I don't really have many good examples on age discrimination on me) limits the potential to find skilled people in that field.

Going back to the main thesis: The only thing that anyone cares about (in a workplace/sporting setting, but I apply it universally. Makes life easier.) is "What can you do for me?" What skills and abilities can you bring to make my life better/easier/more interesting? Things like race, gender, socio-economic class, background(-ish. That one is a huge can of worms) and age don't really impact on the "What can you do for me?" imperative that should be in any culture.

I should point out, however, I'm not from the U.S. I live in a country with 97% homogeneity, so seeing people discarded based on their race or socio-economic status is frustratingly common here. I am not sure how prevalent it is in the U.S., but I assume it is fairly common from the news articles I have come across.


I agree with what you are saying. We should not treat people differently based on a demographic they belong to.

However, that was not my point.

Sure, treat everyone the same. Just don't pretend like differences do not exist at all.

Being tolerant does not mean ignoring differences, it means accepting them. In the US, we just try to ignore as much as possible. And that is what gets on my nerves.




I am unsure how to quote properly, so I am using the whoooole lot. My apologies.

I may not have expressed myself properly then. What I am trying to get at is that the differences aren't important. The only important things in people are their skills. Pointing out that differences in unimportant things exsist is pointless at best, and discriminatory at worst. And by discriminatory, I mean that the people who are part of that group may take offence at being labled as part of that group. I know I'm always annoyed when someone points out my heritage. It's like, "Yes, that is a part of me, but it is in no way indicative of skills, drive, ambition, tastes or personal history." Style of thing.
10262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/15/15 , edited 10/15/15

Crylliac wrote:


I am unsure how to quote properly, so I am using the whoooole lot. My apologies.

I may not have expressed myself properly then. What I am trying to get at is that the differences aren't important. The only important things in people are their skills. Pointing out that differences in unimportant things exsist is pointless at best, and discriminatory at worst. And by discriminatory, I mean that the people who are part of that group may take offence at being labled as part of that group. I know I'm always annoyed when someone points out my heritage. It's like, "Yes, that is a part of me, but it is in no way indicative of skills, drive, ambition, tastes or personal history." Style of thing.


Okay. I see what you mean. I think I kind of even agree with the. Like, why even bring it up?.. kinda thing. But, I don't think it always has to be so negative.

Also, sometimes it's staring us in the face, and we just keep denying the hell out of it.

Example: I'm going to go back to the black people and swimming thing I was talking about earlier.

I was in AAVs when I was in the Marine Corps. The job required a swim qualification 2 (swim qual going from 4 at the lowest to 1 at the highest). Our battalion had a ridiculously low number of black people. I'm talking maybe 1-2 black AAV crewman to every 100 white/other AAV crewman. Tanks were more like 1 in 5. Why was that? Because most (not all) of the black people had trouble getting a swim qual higher than 3. So, they didn't qualify for AAVs.

And to be fair, when you are getting swim qual'd in bootcamp, they're really impatient, and are pushing you through pretty fast. How many more could get a higher qual with more work and time? Who knows?

When dealing with another Marine who was talking about how racist the Marine Corps is (Marines are all green, that is a fact)... I had to explain this to him. BUT, when I did, suddenly this dark green Marine saw me as a racist asshole.

And the thing is, when you start dealing with recon, which also requires a high swim qual (I think they require 1, but not sure), the number starts to balance itself out. Do you know why? Simple, black people have an easier time meeting the other physical fitness requirements for the job... so, less of them get to try for recon, but not as many flunk the requirements as their counterparts. Also, I think they can take the opportunity to redo swim qual, which allows for more time and work and better results. The numbers start to balance out, then.

My point is, when it is staring you in the face, and you keep denying it.... then it becomes annoying.

I just want everyone to be able to see reality and be happy with it... instead of denying things for the sake of what? A sense of equality that really doesn't even require us to be the same. But, I suppose that is a bit unrealistic.
7253 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / "10/10" - IGN
Offline
Posted 10/15/15
First of, I have heard of the studies you are mentioning; to dismiss dietary differences is not scientific, so please don't cherry pick which studies you think are valid, because historic dietary differences are just as valid a scientific claim as these other studies.

Secondly, yes, people are genetically different. Let's drop the specifics of the muscle and bone density study for now, and just discuss the obvious. Yes, a black guy has a darker skin tone than a white guy. How are you suggesting that we acknowledge that difference? By sending black people to do outside work more often because their skin is better suited for harsh sunlight? Yes, an Asian has different shaped eyes than other races. How are you suggesting we acknowledge that difference? By making the Asian guys work with bright lights more often because their eyelids are thicker?

Thirdly, I will strongly stand by my earlier point. I know that these differences are real, and so does everyone else, but I firmly stand that we are still equal. I don't care about these genetic differences, if a black guy wants an office job, no one is going to stop him on the grounds that he should work outside because his skin is better for it. except for maybe you. I'm going to draw a line and say that it is okay to acknowledge when differences are significant, like different sex. However, I refuse to acknowledge these insignificant racial traits as grounds to officially "acknowledge a difference", or to treat people differently. I wonder how half race people like me work out in that head of yours? Can you really acknowledge how I'm different when it's only half a difference to you? You portray this attitude as some kind of neutral enlightenment, when in reality you're stickling over insignificant traits that most people would consider unimportant detail; but I guess that's what you've been complaining about.
10262 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/15/15 , edited 10/15/15

Insanerino wrote:

First of, I have heard of the studies you are mentioning; to dismiss dietary differences is not scientific, so please don't cherry pick which studies you think are valid, because historic dietary differences are just as valid a scientific claim as these other studies.


Umm... did not dismiss it, just said that it was wrong to say everything is caused by diet. To say that everything is caused by diet is equally unscientific.



Secondly, yes, people are genetically different. Let's drop the specifics of the muscle and bone density study for now, and just discuss the obvious. Yes, a black guy has a darker skin tone than a white guy. How are you suggesting that we acknowledge that difference? By sending black people to do outside work more often because their skin is better suited for harsh sunlight? Yes, an Asian has different shaped eyes than other races. How are you suggesting we acknowledge that difference? By making the Asian guys work with bright lights more often because their eyelids are thicker?


See... I see how you're trying to make me into an asshole, but I don't think anything so absurd. I simply get really frustrated when I see people deny things that are reality. It bothers me that in the age we live in people value feelings over truth. Just admit that the differences exist. Other than that, nothing else is needed. Personally, I think that is reasonable.



Thirdly, I will strongly stand by my earlier point. I know that these differences are real, and so does everyone else, but I firmly stand that we are still equal. I don't care about these genetic differences, if a black guy wants an office job, no one is going to stop him on the grounds that he should work outside because his skin is better for it. except for maybe you. I'm going to draw a line and say that it is okay to acknowledge when differences are significant, like different sex. However, I refuse to acknowledge these insignificant racial traits as grounds to officially "acknowledge a difference", or to treat people differently. I wonder how half race people like me work out in that head of yours? Can you really acknowledge how I'm different when it's only half a difference to you? You portray this attitude as some kind of neutral enlightenment, when in reality you're stickling over insignificant traits that most people would consider unimportant detail; but I guess that's what you've been complaining about.


I never stated that we weren't equal. I like equality. I think everyone should be equal. I even stated this in my opening post. Again, you are making me out to be some supremacist asshole. LOL


THIS is exactly what I'm talking about. To even mention that the differences exist immediately places you into the category of "racist asshole."

I didn't say anything close to the absurdities you accused me of, here... yet, here I am, getting a finger pointed at me. It's a joke. That's what gets me.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.