Who are you voting for: Election Day is here!

[metroid composite]

Anyway, that video really proves how homophobia is the last bastian of socially permissable prejudice.

No, homophobia isn't the last.

It's legal to fire someone for being gay in something like 30 states.
It's legal to fire someone for being trans in something like 40 states.

(Can't remember the exact numbers, but yeah).

Trans is...probably about where gay was 15 years ago.  (Err...not counting the geographic regions of America that are socially about where the rest of the world was at 30 years ago).

Not sure what's on the horizon after trans, though; robots???

[Grefter]

Mental disability.

[metroid composite]

That's a pretty broad umbrella term.  I mean, 40-50 years ago homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness to be cured.  A little further back, women and blacks were considered mentally subnormal.  Gender identity disorder...well there you go "disorder"--its still right in the name, and you have some doctors in the UK in 2008 calling for a halt on all operations because "we don't treat any other mental illness with a physical operation."  (And other doctors who disagree and insist GID is not a mental illness).


Lumping in all mental disability also opens up a can of worms I'm reluctant to pursue.  I mean, apparently garbage truck companies in California aren't allowed to say "you must be able to lift 50 pounds to have this job", because that would be a sexist job requirement.  If we were to apply this to mental disabilities, that would mean you can't give a secretary applicant a reading-writing test, because that would be anti-dyslexic.  I'd rather not have any of these laws--either you can do the job (despite the odds) or you can't.

[Sierra]

Lumping in all mental disability also opens up a can of worms I'm reluctant to pursue.  I mean, apparently garbage truck companies in California aren't allowed to say "you must be able to lift 50 pounds to have this job", because that would be a sexist job requirement.  If we were to apply this to mental disabilities, that would mean you can't give a secretary applicant a reading-writing test, because that would be anti-dyslexic.  I'd rather not have any of these laws--either you can do the job (despite the odds) or you can't.

These are more examples of political correctness run amok, though, which isn't in the same ballpark as denying/allowing basic rights to someone because of their orientation (except for reactionaries spinning a slippery slope argument, as they are wont to do).

The example you cited is indeed a stupid law, but it's more the result of the people who give feminism a bad name browbeating a committee somewhere into submission. I mean, that's just not sane. At some point you have to make room for practicality. A more dramatic example than garbage collectors: I know this sort of thing's come up with firefighters before, and frankly, setting different standards for male and female firefighters is downright idiotic (and the antithesis of what actual feminism is about, but never mind). I mean, if I'm trapped in a burning room and a firefighter's trying to break the door down with an ax to get to me, I don't care if they're a man or woman. I just want to know that they're strong enough to break the damn door down. If men are statistically more likely to be able to meet a physical standard in this regard, well, that's unfortunate for the women who want to be firefighters but can't (or maybe not, since someone underqualified would be more likely to get killed on the job) but it's not something anyone can do anything about*. (If we find a public official somewhere deliberately changing the standards with the sole intent of excluding a specific demographic, said official definitely needs to be smacked, of course. Hard, and hopefully out of office).

~

*Short of setting yourself up as a supervillain and initiating a grand plan to rewrite the genetic makeup of the human race to have genders that are built the same way. Kind of a long shot, but I have to assume it'd be more fun than herding micromanagement like this into law.

[Grefter]

setting different standards for male and female firefighters is downright idiotic (and the antithesis of what actual feminism is about, but never mind)

Actually not necessarilly.  There has to be some give with the difference in things, there is still some physical differences in sex that need to be accounted for.  Feminism is about giving people equal rights and freedoms to do those things.  Certain jobs will be able to have different job requirements based on sex.  The Fire fighter one isn't the greatest example, they really should just have a threshold for being able to handle certain positions within the team and meeting those requirements lets you do those specific jobs that you are capable of doing without being as strong or whatever.

[metroid composite]

These are more examples of political correctness run amok, though, which isn't in the same ballpark as denying/allowing basic rights to someone because of their orientation

Well...okay, but if nothing needs to change legislatively, and it's all about more open-minded attitudes towards the mentally ill, then Mental Illness is arguably further along the path than Sexual Preference or Gender Identity.



Yes, there is a stigma against people with Mental Illness; it is much harder for a mentally ill person to get a job.  But you could say the same about black people, "black men without a criminal record are less likely to find a job than white men with criminal records.":
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=620a7a4dc8b8f2319c0f74fa1f746a0c

Yes, television has some pretty bad stereotypes of mentally ill people.  But then, it also has some pretty bad stereotypes of black people.

Yes, people will abort fetuses if a mental illness is detected.  People also abort girls (apparently the current teenager demographic in Vancouver, Canada of all places, is 63% male, 37% female).


On the other hand...
No, parents don't kick their kids out on the street and disown them for having a learning disability (or I've never heard of that happening).  Kicked out for being LGBT, though?  Sure, it's actually a significant problem even in hippie-town San Francisco (disowned LGBTs are a significant demographic in shelters from what I've heard).

No, I don't know of any laws saying that people with mental disabilities can't get married.  Treatment of a mental illness doesn't result in the automatic annulment of a marriage.  A quick google search suggests that it's not legal to fire someone in America over any legitimate disability including mental disability.  (Whereas obviously there are laws against gay marriage, for GRS->marriage annulment, and for LGBT as a legal reason to fire someone).

[Sierra]

setting different standards for male and female firefighters is downright idiotic (and the antithesis of what actual feminism is about, but never mind)

Actually not necessarilly.  There has to be some give with the difference in things, there is still some physical differences in sex that need to be accounted for.  Feminism is about giving people equal rights and freedoms to do those things.  Certain jobs will be able to have different job requirements based on sex.

I'm aware that the varying degrees to which birth/upbringing/culture shape an adult is an ongoing debate, but isn't it an accurate observation that men, on average, are statistically taller and stronger than women? This seems a lot harder to pin on cultural norms than, say, a predilection towards the hard sciences (which has obvious cultural biases reinforcing the status quo). Anyone trying to suggest that women are mentally not suited to such pursuits should rightfully become an object of mockery, in my view, but this case seems more like a logistical issue. In a job where someone's life will be at stake on a regular basis (the occupant and whoever it is they're trying to save) demographic quotas shouldn't be our main concern.

I've always interpreted feminism as equal rights/privileges and responsibilities. That is, you get something because you earned it/are qualified for it, not just because you are a man/woman. Fundamentally, it's about making gender not matter (as much as this possibly can be accomplished). This may not be the textbook definition, but it's what I've picked up about the movement that I respect. Setting different standards seems to defeat the purpose. Could you give examples of where this actually works?

The Fire fighter one isn't the greatest example, they really should just have a threshold for being able to handle certain positions within the team and meeting those requirements lets you do those specific jobs that you are capable of doing without being as strong or whatever.

Pretty much. It would be silly to hold the same physical standards against someone who's primarily a driver (or, hell, a dispatcher, which is possibly what made me think of this in the first place. One of my cousins married a fire department dispatcher who was in that role precisely because he couldn't hack the fitness standards for the more active jobs). But this is getting a little in-depth for something that basically just started as a prod to say that I agreed with MC about something being nonsense but that it was only tangentially related to what he was actually responding to.

EDIT: Bwah, Met post, thread necromancy in full swing. Leaving work soon, response later if needed.

[Sierra]

Read MC post. Long story short, "more open-minded attitudes towards [people not like me]" would solve so many problems that it's not funny, indeed.

[NotMiki]

It's worth noting that the US army has some jobs that women are disqualified from ostensibly because they're weaker on average than men (artillery-reloading, which requires the ability to dead lift something like 100 lbs comes to mind, and I think there were others as well).  That is, of course, a silly argument because anyone, man or woman, without the requisite strength is disqualified.

Anti-discrimination laws can lead to some rather strange cases, like this one:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,453987,00.html

and the stuff this guy does:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/lawyer-files-antifeminist-suit-against-columbia/

It's almost enough to make me wish for less thorny issues to think about (and the War on Christmas is just around the corner, after all...)

[metroid composite]

Read MC post. Long story short, "more open-minded attitudes towards [people not like me]" would solve so many problems that it's not funny, indeed.

Yes, although I'd say it's a more general attitude shift.  For instance, if a mother says to her daughter "a woman's place is in the kitchen, you should be cooking for your man" from a feminist perspective this is extremely problematic.  When a woman decides she wants to give her husband a son, and so aborts a daugher, again feminism doesn't like this at all.  Yet there's no [people not like me] in these examples.

It's worth noting that the US army has some jobs that women are disqualified from ostensibly because they're weaker on average than men (artillery-reloading, which requires the ability to dead lift something like 100 lbs comes to mind, and I think there were others as well).  That is, of course, a silly argument because anyone, man or woman, without the requisite strength is disqualified.

Depends--doesn't the US army try to split it into men's platoons and women's platoons?  (And at the same time keep gays out of the army)?  There's logic behind this--no sexual tension on the battlefield and such.

From this perspective, if you're not going to get enough women to form a platoon for a job because only 5% of them have the strength requirement, it's easier just to say "no women in this job".

[NotMiki]

From this perspective, if you're not going to get enough women to form a platoon for a job because only 5% of them have the strength requirement, it's easier just to say "no women in this job".

There's logic in segregation, but most of the reason they do it is to keep women out of combat.  The military lives almost completely in the shadow of Vietnam in this respect: they try to limit public criticism of the war as much as they possibly can.  Hence the prohibition of photographing soldiers' coffins, hence the decision not to count enemy casualties (nothing galvanizes opposition like hard numbers such as '500,000 dead women and children,' an estimate that is probably a little high, but god only knows).  US girls in their late teens/early twenties shot by insurgents is not exactly a public relations winner.

But...there's ALWAYS logic in a non-diversified workforce.  No racial/sexual tension, everyone speaks with the same accent, etc.  Doesn't mean the US should stand for it.  The Army integrated African Americans long before it was culturally acceptible to do so.  If they wanted to integrate gays and women in the same way, you bet your ass they could.  Boot camp is essentially hard resetting your brain and having it rewired into what the military needs it to be.  If the military says you integrate with gays and women and you don't complain about it, that's what happens.

[SageAcrin]

From this perspective, if you're not going to get enough women to form a platoon for a job because only 5% of them have the strength requirement, it's easier just to say "no women in this job".

There's logic in segregation, but most of the reason they do it is to keep women out of combat.  The military lives almost completely in the shadow of Vietnam in this respect: they try to limit public criticism of the war as much as they possibly can.  Hence the prohibition of photographing soldiers' coffins, hence the decision not to count enemy casualties (nothing galvanizes opposition like hard numbers such as '500,000 dead women and children,' an estimate that is probably a little high, but god only knows).  US girls in their late teens/early twenties shot by insurgents is not exactly a public relations winner.

But...there's ALWAYS logic in a non-diversified workforce.  No racial/sexual tension, everyone speaks with the same accent, etc.  Doesn't mean the US should stand for it.  The Army integrated African Americans long before it was culturally acceptible to do so.  If they wanted to integrate gays and women in the same way, you bet your ass they could.  Boot camp is essentially hard resetting your brain and having it rewired into what the military needs it to be.  If the military says you integrate with gays and women and you don't complain about it, that's what happens.

The problem is, most jobs don't inheirently seem to involve chastity and death.

This is a terrible combination in which to introduce a small, feminine minority, due to distraction value, etc., etc., etc., good lord this has to have been gone over, historically, hundreds of times.

Of course, no one ever thought about it more than the five minutes it takes to say that.

Why military seems to have such a problem with normal relationships on job hours is a beyond me, is why I say that. Historically, people tend to protect their spouses far more strongly than anyone else besides their children; Such links should be an incredible morale booster.

And it'd be fairly simple to cut down on the distraction value downside for the rest, if people really cared, by simply utilizing legalized prostitution.

(There are other solutions, but they're just as... tacky? to most people, though, such as cash incentives to women to increase the relative amount of women, or hiring lots of homosexuals. Legalizing prostitution within a certain area of military property sounds hilarious as a solution, but honestly it's something that probably should have been done ages ago. It's not like prostitution around military bases doesn't happen; This would just make the problem less ugly and obvious. Strikes me as a pretty elegant solution.)

The problem mostly is that the military institution is a collosal old boys club, often running in family dynasties, with literally hundreds of years of tradition, pomp, circumstance, and ultimately, calcification... and it's simply not really feasible to change it's basic workings to include women easily, currently. Kinda sad.

[Grefter]

Obvious things that physical differences matter.  Porn.  Hooters style franchises.  Feminism has all kinds of -other- problems with these thigns, but the fact that these specific roles require the employee to be a specific gender isn't going to be bothersome from a Feminist perspective.

For women in the military specifically (or even more specifically as I believe most of these things are, in combat situations), Australian Military heads have come out and said that if the Australian public is ready to see dead women come home then they will institute this policy.  We still are not by our social norms, so they do not do so.  I think you will find this is the case in most western militaries.  Jim is on the ball in this one.  It isn't a specific flaw in the military, it is a battle of social norms


Why stop at just around military bases?  Legalising prostitution does plenty of positive things to society in general.  Not all feminists agree, but I certainly think it is a good start.

[Cotigo]

Why military seems to have such a problem with normal relationships on job hours is a beyond me, is why I say that. Historically, people tend to protect their spouses far more strongly than anyone else besides their children; Such links should be an incredible morale booster.

...Yes, they tend to protect their spouses far more strongly than anyone else.  They also tend to react more strongly when said spouse gets killed in combat.  To say nothing of loyalty issues: if you're in the military, your loyalty and duty in the field should be to the country and the armed services as a whole, not to a spouse.  And, if you and your other half have a falling out?  Gee nothing could go wrong there while you're simultaneously bitching at eachother and dealing with being shot at continuously. 

Of course, there are other solutions but it's much easier for them to just eliminate the possibility of sexual tension in the first place.

I'm not trying to justify the military's policies on this but there is a logic behind it.

[SageAcrin]

Why military seems to have such a problem with normal relationships on job hours is a beyond me, is why I say that. Historically, people tend to protect their spouses far more strongly than anyone else besides their children; Such links should be an incredible morale booster.

...Yes, they tend to protect their spouses far more strongly than anyone else.  They also tend to react more strongly when said spouse gets killed in combat.  To say nothing of loyalty issues: if you're in the military, your loyalty and duty in the field should be to the country and the armed services as a whole, not to a spouse.  And, if you and your other half have a falling out?  Gee nothing could go wrong there while you're simultaneously bitching at eachother and dealing with being shot at continuously. 

Of course, there are other solutions but it's much easier for them to just eliminate the possibility of sexual tension in the first place.

I'm not trying to justify the military's policies on this but there is a logic behind it.

Mmmm. I'm inclined to say those downsides have existed, mostly, for the military anyways; Ever heard of Dear John letters? Yeah, people have all sorts of stupid emotional issues with their spouses regardless of if they're actually there.

I'm not saying that it's necesarily a good thing, per se...In fact, when I went to write that sentence, I was initially planning on defending their views. But I have to admit, they haven't tried very hard at all to make it work.

Why stop at just around military bases?  Legalising prostitution does plenty of positive things to society in general.  Not all feminists agree, but I certainly think it is a good start.

For the same reason that medicine in the US is socialized for veterans but not most people; People tend to give the military what they want more. I agree, otherwise.

[Grefter]

Oh yeah I forgot to defend the Mental Illness thing.

Met, when you see society not treating things like Depression or PTSD as minor things that people just need to get over/harden the fuck up to get over, then I would believe you that it isn't an issue.  The reality of mental illness is still that it is something that is fairly universally disdained and ignored.  Case in point, you immediately jumped to the extremes of mental illness when there is a mass of other illnesses (that are actual illnesses and not a sexuality!) that do not impede on your basic ability to lie your way through the day and pretend to be normal, but they are still soul crushing brutalities that people would rather deny than own up to and be scorned for them.  How many people at your work do you know that are overstressed but will not admit it?  Why won't they admit it?

Edit - Not to say mental handicaps are also not mistreated in completely different manners than the ones you have covered, just saying there is plenty of other things here.

[Cotigo]

Mmmm. I'm inclined to say those downsides have existed, mostly, for the military anyways; Ever heard of Dear John letters? Yeah, people have all sorts of stupid emotional issues with their spouses regardless of if they're actually there.

Not the fucking point.  If you have an emotional spat with your spouse while you both are serving in the same unit?  Maybe your priorities are changed a little.  You're a little less likely to give them aid.  A little less likely to focus on a mission and more on your spouse.  If you're a particular sort of prick, you could also, y'know, shoot em yourself and make all kinds of crazy excuses.  Sure, that'd probably get court martialed but the point remains.

[metroid composite]

How many people at your work do you know that are overstressed but will not admit it?  Why won't they admit it?

I dunno about actually diagnosed overstressed, but stressed and taking well-needed vacation time?  Sure.  I also know people who admit and are vocal about OCD and colourblindness.  Not sure about ADD--it gets tossed around a whole lot to the point that it doesn't really mean anything; hell, I just had my psychologist suggest I probably have some mild ADD, which is absolutely ridicu...ooooh, pretty rainbows!

[Sierra]

Everyone in my age bracket at work claims they have ADD. Usually it just means "I have no attention span because I grew up in the MTV era."

[Cotigo]

Everyone in my age bracket at work claims they have ADD. Usually it just means "I have no attention span because I grew up in the MTV era."

I'd say, honestly, the internet era's more to blame for it.  I know I have absolutely no attention span whatsoever because my mind's been warped by this crap.  The thing is, at the risk of proving Grefter's point, with ADD I'm pretty sure that's just what the disorder is--new technologies and children growing up with easy access to time wasters killing their attention spans so dead. 

[Sierra]

While this is entirely true, Zenny, it denies me the opportunity to blame MTV for the decline of civilization.

[superaielman]

Everyone in my age bracket at work claims they have ADD. Usually it just means "I have no attention span because I grew up in the MTV era."

I'd say, honestly, the internet era's more to blame for it.  I know I have absolutely no attention span whatsoever because my mind's been warped by this crap.  The thing is, at the risk of proving Grefter's point, with ADD I'm pretty sure that's just what the disorder is--new technologies and children growing up with easy access to time wasters killing their attention spans so dead. 

Actual medical ADD is something that exists from very early childhood, I got diagnosed at the age of.. oh hell, really young.  People who say "Oh I'm ADD lol' are idiots, it's the difference between having a bad attention span (Pay more attention idiots) and having no attention span.

[metroid composite]

with ADD I'm pretty sure that's just what the disorder is--new technologies and children growing up with easy access to time wasters killing their attention spans so dead. 

Well yes, at least from how she described it to me, ADD isn't a moment-to-moment "entertain me, be flashy"--after all I've read and enjoyed Charlotte Brontë.  I also never watched MTV as a kid, and didn't have internet access until university.

However, it's also noteworthy that I don't, say, stick on an internet forum for more than about a three month stretch before moving on to a different internet forum.  (And yes I've returned to the DL quite a lot, but I've definitely had long absences).  I also shift the videogame genres I enjoy--I'm not sure I've played and enjoyed a standard RPG (non-SRPG) in...umm...two years?  And I can't even remember the last time I really got into a Metroid game the way I used to get into them.

[Cmdr_King]

I've alway thought the argument againt workplace relationships was bunk, myself.  Because honestly, if someone's not mature enough to behave curteously, or at least professionally, with an ex?  They're going to let any relationships they have interfere with their work.  Shit happens, you can either set it aside for eight hours or you can't.  And this completely ignores the potential benefits, of course.

Of course, this may be less applicable in the military, where a few seconds to get your head on straight could be critical, I suppose?  Eh, not an expert.

[Grefter]

Nah, I would agree with you on ADD being over-diagnosed Zenny, that is a completely different issue though (Over medicated Western world in general, like most trends spawning from America).  More to respond to but I am out of time