Turn on thread page Beta

I ain't buying any of this 'International Womens Day' / female self promotion watch

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Those real feminist intellectuals that we were reffering to on page one are starting to show up now and they are totally "rebuking" the arguments in this thread with those main weapons of feminism, insults and mockery.



    "Here is a mantra, short one, that I give you. You imprint it on your heart and let every breath of yours give expression to it. The mantra is "do or die"." Mahatma Ghandi.
    If you don't mind me joining in on this discussion, I decided to read up on the earlier mentioned mammogram argument, since I was interested in potential reasoning behind it. From what I've read, multiple surveys asked women, most of whom had had a mammogram, how they would feel around a male mammographer. Over 40% said they'd feel uncomfortable, and over 20% said they'd outright refuse without a chaperone present at all times. Based on this, and with the knowledge that women are the primary consumer of mammograms, doesn't it make sense to cater to their needs?

    When you mention that, "There are no such restrictions on women in any area of radiology. As in women can work in all areas of radiology including those that involve the scanning of male sex organs without any restrictions...but men can't." You need to consider that, for one, companies will employ whoever is most profitable and most benefits their clients, and two, there's a lot more context and nuance surrounding these issues.

    I also looked through some data from the UK GOV website about the NHS Breast Screening Programme. As you're probably aware, there's a very high demand for radiographers at the moment, specifically ones dealing with mammography. Since, based on these surveys, it is evident that women prefer female mammographers, it is perfectly rational to push more females in the direction of mammography.

    You could call that sexism, if you wanted to look at it in a very simplistic manner, but the more nuanced approach is that women want to feel comfortable and subsequently create a female-demand in a supply and demand based-market economy.

    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...er_2016416.pdf
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    Sir, you have only resorted to mockery and abuse in this thread as your main arguments against me....as in your replies to my comments have been nothing but personal insults with no counterargument to speak of. How else do you expect me to take them but personally?

    Mockery and vitriol cannot be justified under any circumstance and in any thread. They are always destructive and wrong no matter where you imploy them and whom you employ them against. If you think someone is stupid you expose and refute their stupidity with logic not with mockery and insults. Mockery and vitriol say more about you and what you stand for than they do about me and what I stand for.

    "Mockery and ridicule rest on a false opinion and indicate an imperfection in he who mocks and ridicules.” Baruch Spinoza.
    Well, as I said before, I haven't made any arguments against you in this thread. I just made fun of something you had written...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raposa)
    If you don't mind me joining in on this discussion, I decided to read up on the earlier mentioned mammogram argument, since I was interested in potential reasoning behind it. From what I've read, multiple surveys asked women, most of whom had had a mammogram, how they would feel around a male mammographer. Over 40% said they'd feel uncomfortable, and over 20% said they'd outright refuse without a chaperone present at all times. Based on this, and with the knowledge that women are the primary consumer of mammograms, doesn't it make sense to cater to their needs?
    There are people out there who refuse to be treated by black healthcare professionals too. Should we perhaps cater to their racism? Male radiographers are being denied access to a highly payed, highly competitive branch of radiography because of their sex. This same standard is not applied to female radiographers who are allowed to work in all areas of radiography including those that involve examining men's private parts. Male radiography students are paying the exact same tuition fees as female radiography students despite being denied an equal education. If this isn't clear sexism, then i don't know what is.

    (Original post by Raposa)
    When you mention that, "There are no such restrictions on women in any area of radiology. As in women can work in all areas of radiology including those that involve the scanning of male sex organs without any restrictions...but men can't." You need to consider that, for one, companies will employ whoever is most profitable and most benefits their clients
    We are not talking about a company here Raposa. We are talking about the NHS a non-profit governmental organisation paid for by the British tax payer.. All organisations and companies in this country should employ fair hiring policies. Universities, companies and organisations should not be allowed to employ discriminatory hiring policies.

    (Original post by Raposa)
    and two, there's a lot more context and nuance surrounding these issues.
    Please elaborate.

    (Original post by Raposa)
    I also looked through some data from the UK GOV website about the NHS Breast Screening Programme. As you're probably aware, there's a very high demand for radiographers at the moment, specifically ones dealing with mammography. Since, based on these surveys, it is evident that women prefer female mammographers, it is perfectly rational to push more females in the direction of mammography.
    You are basing this entire argument here on the idea that it is OK to be sexist because that's what patients prefer. Its not. Its not OK to apply one standard to men and another to women. Its not fair for men to be denied work in areas where they may become exposed to female genitalia but allow females to work in all areas of medicine including those that expose them to male genitalia.

    I mean, we live in a country that preaches equality morning day and night. Where is the equality in these policies? Its weird how equality flies out of the window in areas of life where discrimination benefits women.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    You're not alone.

    If anything, women are at an advantage in the workplace due to every major corporation's apparent scramble to increase gender representation. Google, for example, has already been outed for their discriminatory hiring practices (class action lawsuits pending). Women get an unbelievable amount of support just for being women. I'd actually find it rather patronising if I was a chick. They're having their hands held and being treated like children, then used by employers as tokens to show off how "progressive" and "pro-women" they are. Just look at how Justin Trudeau selected his cabinet. It's pure tokenism. He's like a feminist pimp.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Hell I don’t even know where to start.... there’s just too much misogyny in one group of text.

    Okay, so you believe that women are self pitying, and have too much self promotion, etc. 1- why the hell do you care??? Why does the rise of women somehow threaten you? Women can’t do a single f*cking thing nowadays without men having to give their entitled opinion, or act like women should actually care what they say. NEWSFLASH: women are empowering themselves BECAUSE of all the crap we’ve had to put up with in the past, usually due to men’s short comings.
    Let me remind you that in America in the 1970s, women still couldn’t use a damn credit card without her husband’s ‘permission’, since he had to sign it off. And that worldwide, women are 80% of victims in acid attacks. And that in Canada, one in 5 women will be raped. And that in Hollywood, 96% of female actresses have encountered sexual assault in their career.
    But no, you’re pissed that women are suddenly fighting back? GTF over it.

    Are you honestly that small minded to think that just coz you’ve seen men apparently work harder in the workplace, suddenly ALL women are lazy?
    Maybe the reason why women are less vocal in meetings is because douches like you believe women are too opinionated, too outspoken and b*tchy whenever they speak their mind. It’s also most likely due to the fact that women face LOTS more opposition to get jobs in STEM or big businesses, because misogynistic little boys like you believe the lies you’ve been told since the f*cking Middle Ages: that women are less capable than men.

    I’ve grown tired of little menininsts like you who have to direct every problem back to how “men are so hardly done by”, “men are so disadvantaged”, bla bla bla. Can’t you just accept that both men and women face problems? Instead of belittling women’s issues to give yourself a booster, try and empathise first. Trust me, I could rant about this for hours, but you’re attention span’s probably ran out by now anyway.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Literally the only message I’ve got out of your rant is: “I’m a small insecure boy who is threatened by the rise of women. I hate that I can’t use my sexist attitudes to insult them anymore, so I’ll call them crybabies- despite the fact that I literally wrote an entire paragraph talking about how disadvantaged us poor men are.”
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I think what a lot of people on this discussion are missing is that the key point of intersectional feminism is everyone should be treated equally regardless of gender, race or sexuality. The aim of feminism (or at least the feminism I support) is not to advance women by disadvantaging men, but rather to ensure that from a young age, people of all backgrounds, ethnicities and genders are given equal opportunity from the get-go. Yes, you will always get some people who will use that ethos to their own advantage, or who slack off and then blame discrimination for being unable to progress in their careers, and that is wrong, but it's also a small minority of women who do that. It's unfair to tarnish all women with the same brush. It's also very important to understand there are varying degrees of privilege; for example, as a white female, I am 'privileged' in that I don't come from an ethnic minority, but I'm disadvantaged because I'm female, just as a black male would be disadvantaged due to his ethnicity but less so because he is a man. To say we don't need feminism is wrong. If we didn't need there would already be far more diversity in managerial positions. However, as it stands, there are more men named John running big companies than all women in the same position put together. Women aren't inherently lazy or worse at their jobs - that's a ridiculous assumption - women are just less likely to be promoted, most likely due to subconscious sexism.

    It's also been mentioned on this thread that there are more pressing cases of discrimination than sexism, and to a certain extent, I agree. Racism, homophobia, transphobia nd xenophobia, to name just a few, are unfortunately widespread in today's society. But I would argue that intersectional feminism actually covers a lot of these bases. Even male suicide, which was mentioned, fit under this umbrella to a certain extent. One of the biggest pressures on men in out society is this 'toxic hyper masculinity' which is itself a result of internalised misogyny. Women are often (even subconsciously) viewed as weak. This means a lot of 'weak' behaviours are associated with women; crying, being afraid, asking for help, etc. And therefore these behaviours are seen as 'unmanly', leading to a lot of men, who are in need of support, feeling unable to seek it out, sometimes purely because they feel displaying these behaviours makes them 'weak'. By attempting to prevent internalised sexism in out society, feminism is actually beneficial for many men who find themself in these circumstances.

    So in answer to the original question, no, you're not the only one who feels that way. Whilst that's your opinion and by law you're entitled to it, please look further into feminism, particularly intersectional feminism, before tarnishing us all with the same brush, or extrapolating from what you've seen online. It is usually the loudest, most aggressive 'feminists' that make the news, but a lot of these have a misandristic outlook, and aren't necessarily the ones that need to be heard. More often than not they do a poor job of representing a movement that in reality is about pressing for equality for all, regardless of gender, race, religion, class or sexuality.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milly_124x)
    I think what a lot of people on this discussion are missing is that the key point of intersectional feminism is everyone should be treated equally regardless of gender, race or sexuality. The aim of feminism (or at least the feminism I support) is not to advance women by disadvantaging men, but rather to ensure that from a young age, people of all backgrounds, ethnicities and genders are given equal opportunity from the get-go. Yes, you will always get some people who will use that ethos to their own advantage, or who slack off and then blame discrimination for being unable to progress in their careers, and that is wrong, but it's also a small minority of women who do that. It's unfair to tarnish all women with the same brush. It's also very important to understand there are varying degrees of privilege; for example, as a white female, I am 'privileged' in that I don't come from an ethnic minority, but I'm disadvantaged because I'm female, just as a black male would be disadvantaged due to his ethnicity but less so because he is a man. To say we don't need feminism is wrong. If we didn't need there would already be far more diversity in managerial positions. However, as it stands, there are more men named John running big companies than all women in the same position put together. Women aren't inherently lazy or worse at their jobs - that's a ridiculous assumption - women are just less likely to be promoted, most likely due to subconscious sexism.
    Could you give some examples of opportunities open to men that aren't open to women; so far as I can see men and women have complete equality of opportunity.

    You also talk about the idea of white privilege, I think you should try and think of it instead as wealth privilege.

    What you're doing here is the same thing that a lot of religious people do; where a motive or cause can't be established you're filling the blank with your own idea. There are dozens of possible reasons as to why there are more men in senior positions yet you assume it's sexism.

    (Original post by milly_124x)
    It's also been mentioned on this thread that there are more pressing cases of discrimination than sexism, and to a certain extent, I agree. Racism, homophobia, transphobia nd xenophobia, to name just a few, are unfortunately widespread in today's society. But I would argue that intersectional feminism actually covers a lot of these bases. Even male suicide, which was mentioned, fit under this umbrella to a certain extent. One of the biggest pressures on men in out society is this 'toxic hyper masculinity' which is itself a result of internalised misogyny. Women are often (even subconsciously) viewed as weak. This means a lot of 'weak' behaviours are associated with women; crying, being afraid, asking for help, etc. And therefore these behaviours are seen as 'unmanly', leading to a lot of men, who are in need of support, feeling unable to seek it out, sometimes purely because they feel displaying these behaviours makes them 'weak'. By attempting to prevent internalised sexism in out society, feminism is actually beneficial for many men who find themself in these circumstances.
    In what way are xenophobia, homophobia and racism widespread? Rather than coming back with a bleeding heart story about a gay person getting some crap on twitter try actually using some verifiable statistics that make a comparison to the population in general.

    Again you're answering a very complex question with no proof just to ensure it fits your opinion. This is idea of 'toxic hyper masculinity' is nonsense; men have increasingly been moving toward things traditionally considered feminine such as taking an interest in fashion and grooming yet in 2017 suicide rates were the highest in a decade. The idea that men today are expected to be more macho and masculine than fifty years ago is ridiculous.

    (Original post by milly_124x)
    So in answer to the original question, no, you're not the only one who feels that way. Whilst that's your opinion and by law you're entitled to it, please look further into feminism, particularly intersectional feminism, before tarnishing us all with the same brush, or extrapolating from what you've seen online. It is usually the loudest, most aggressive 'feminists' that make the news, but a lot of these have a misandristic outlook, and aren't necessarily the ones that need to be heard. More often than not they do a poor job of representing a movement that in reality is about pressing for equality for all, regardless of gender, race, religion, class or sexuality.
    Would you care to give some examples of feminist campaigns aimed at challenging areas where men are disadvantaged such as criminal justice, child custody and refuge centres; surely if feminism is about equality they'll be trying to rid men of disadvantage also.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    As usual, it's a man voicing these sorts of opinions who will never have had or never will have any idea of what being a woman is like. Imagine if I tried to tell men they're not experiencing discrimination and should be paid less as a woman! Imagine if I told them that the reason their suicide rate and their homelessness is so high because men are weak, pitiful and powerless as a woman. It's audacity at its finest.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    As usual, it's a man voicing these sorts of opinions who will never have had or never will have any idea of what being a woman is like. Imagine if I tried to tell men they're not experiencing discrimination and should be paid less as a woman! Imagine if I told them that the reason their suicide rate and their homelessness is so high because men are weak, pitiful and powerless as a woman. It's audacity at its finest.
    Facts don't care what your gender is. The facts are: women aren't paid less than men for the same job, women get more charity and help from society despite being better off than men in most ways (health, lifespan, homelessness, murder rate, education, etc.), and women get away with far more wrongdoing. Women get like half the jail time for the same crimes, for crying out loud. And now with all these gender quotas and diversity commitments, it's not exactly women who need to worry about being discriminated against in industry.

    Women in Western society have it pretty darn good right now.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toums)
    A little rant as I've grown tired of this self promotion, self pitying mantra that young women are putting out on their social media.

    In all my experience of University and working at an investment bank - when the class ended it was only boys who queued up to speak to the lecturer, it was mostly boys who asked questions in class, it was mostly boys who hadthe courage to lead socieites on their own. At work, 75% of the people sat at their desk at 7.30am when I arrived were men. In meetings, it was mostly men who spoke up. When 5pm came, it was mostly women who would shoot off. etc etc I could go on and on. These are all truths I saw with my own two eyes.

    I honestly just don't get it. I want to stress that I think women are EVERY bit as capable as men. Yet in line with my previous paragraph, I absolutely don't think you deserve equal pay just by virtue of being a woman. I absolutely don't think that you are discriminated in the workplace when compared to men. My reasons for that are in the above paragraph. For every 1x woman, you have maybe 10x men in most situations related to work (and even sport). That's the thing, it all comes down to ratios.

    A girl on Linkedin put a self promotion message up saying that during an internship at an investment bank she was told by a male intern that she was fillinf a quota, and that women are as capable as men etc etc. I'm sorry but, you generally are filling a quota. If we did it on probabilities, there are greater numbers of men out there in your shoes. That's not to say she's not as capable, but she is filling a quota. That's why there are women only breakfasts, women trading games, women only events, woman scholarships. I know of women who got into investment banks for the wrong reasons also (I'll let you work it out) - taking advantage of who they are basically - I suppose that is alright also? All of this and then you are discriminated against in the workforce? Really?

    I've just grown tired of the attitude of modern day women. It's always me, me me, poor me and my discriminated life. You would think they were born with no arms and no legs - I find their self pitying incredible. My brother is autistic and he works at ASDA - that's where my sympathy and support goes.

    Females have every bit of opportunity and power as men. Many say well society teaches us this and that and that we are not good enough. We need greater inclusion etc etc.. Tough! Do these woman ever stop to puase and think about the male suicide rate in this country and what society has done to these men to make them do that? Do they ever pause and think about something that doesn't relate to themselves, that carried far more importance? It's just not enough to justify the constant poor me attitude, I can't do anything because of men.

    Another silly Linkedin post today by someone at McKinsey talking about a lecture given to men to not be scared of women in STEM degrees! They make it sound like men look up to women and think they are the Lionel Messi's in the workforce. I'd loveto have been there and asked her why less females apply for these roles! (hence less of them in the workforce). But of course, she probably would have said that they feel as though society has taught them this and that etc. Again, not good enough. I'd prefer some honesty like a lady on Linkedin who recently said questions what women are doing for each other? That they always expect from men.

    I'm sorry but I just don't feel any sympathy towards women, just by virtue of being a woman. I find it insulting actually. There's much worse discrimination out there. It's funny that many women complain about being discriminated against, but are equally happy to use their body andposition to abuse their power and work their way into positions. Have you ever thought of the men who have been discriminated against in thos situations? I feel sorry for people who deserve sympathy, support and encouragement, like my brother. I think these are the people we should be supporting and encouraging.

    Am I the only on with these thoughts?
    Do you honestly think that every women acts like this? Maybe you just go to a university with some girls who don’t really care, in my college it’s the opposite. But do you think i think all men are lazy? No I don’t. Stop with these generalising posts.

    And there still are situations where people are being treated differently for being a women, it’s just behind closed doors. And yes male discrimination is important but it’s like going to a breast cancer rally and screaming about prostate cancer. Not the time or place.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Facts don't care what your gender is. The facts are: women aren't paid less than men for the same job, women get more charity and help from society despite being better off than men in most ways (health, lifespan, homelessness, murder rate, education, etc.), and women get away with far more wrongdoing. Women get like half the jail time for the same crimes, for crying out loud. And now with all these gender quotas and diversity commitments, it's not exactly women who need to worry about being discriminated against in industry.

    Women in Western society have it pretty darn good right now.
    I acknowledge that in a lot of ways western women have it quite good (as opposed to our far more oppressed middle eastern counterparts) but in a lot of ways women have to catch up to men in the socioeconomic department and especially in the STEM fields. This is not me saying western women are oppressed, rather, that we have more work to do to catch up.

    Personally I think that at least in contemporary Britain, your social class holds you back more than your gender. A middle class oxbridge medical student has far more privilege than a working class man growing up on a council estate with little money who has no educational prospects. The point above that I was making is that I wouldn't make generalisations about a gender I wasn't a part of
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Let me start by saying I believe in true equality; equal pay, no discrimination.

    However, having been turned down for 5 jobs in the last month due to companies trying to fill gender quotas has left me feeling less than sympathetic. I mean 1 time to get through uni i tried getting a bar tending job and the bar manager stated she wouldn't hire men because tits equal tips!

    Maybe if we stopped ******** like positive discrimination and accepted that sexism is a 2-way street and that it can happen against men too we might start seeing better results?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    @OP Fully agreed. I turned off LinkedIn notifications because of the endless self-promoting, baseless cringe, not to mention the constant refrain of "Muh wage gap", which study after study has shown to not exist when all relevant factors are controlled for. I also don't hold to an egalitarianism fetish, so...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I acknowledge that in a lot of ways western women have it quite good (as opposed to our far more oppressed middle eastern counterparts) but in a lot of ways women have to catch up to men in the socioeconomic department and especially in the STEM fields. This is not me saying western women are oppressed, rather, that we have more work to do to catch up.

    Personally I think that at least in contemporary Britain, your social class holds you back more than your gender. A middle class oxbridge medical student has far more privilege than a working class man growing up on a council estate with little money who has no educational prospects.
    There again with that silly word. The fact of the matter is that people differ on a number of spectra in terms of their raw ability and also their wherewithal to make use of it. What does calling it "privilege" add? Who is doing the "privileging" here? Nature? "Society"? Is it some form of original sin for which one owes penance? Or just a fact of life that people differ, that they therefore have differing ability to fulfill the demands of others and therefore differing ability to succeed in life. Let's throw in that said working class man has a great, supportive community, whereas the middle class medical student struggles to make friends. Still "privileged"?

    The point above that I was making is that I wouldn't make generalisations about a gender I wasn't a part of
    Luckily, there is this thing called the scientific method, which allows us to study things that aren't us.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    "Not enough women out collecting bins in the morning are there, Steve."

    Said no-one ever.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TCA2b)
    There again with that silly word. The fact of the matter is that people differ on a number of spectra in terms of their raw ability and also their wherewithal to make use of it. What does calling it "privilege" add? Who is doing the "privileging" here? Nature? "Society"? Is it some form of original sin for which one owes penance? Or just a fact of life that people differ, that they therefore have differing ability to fulfill the demands of others and therefore differing ability to succeed in life. Let's throw in that said working class man has a great, supportive community, whereas the middle class medical student struggles to make friends. Still "privileged"?


    Luckily, there is this thing called the scientific method, which allows us to study things that aren't us.
    Yes, objectively the oxbridge medical student from a relatively wealthy background would still have a better life than the working class man irrespective of the ability to socialise. Privilege itself is just an advantage one individual has over another individual, be it bestowed by financial status, genetics or society. I don't believe in "white privilege" but I certainly believe in wealth privilege, money will get you further in life than any other aspect.

    Yes, thank you for that random end sentence, I'm sure as a ex-chemistry undergraduate myself I'm well aware of the scientific method. The op, however presents no such scientific support for his opinion, only his own biased observations.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Yes, objectively the oxbridge medical student from a relatively wealthy background would still have a better life than the working class man irrespective of the ability to socialise. Privilege itself is just an advantage one individual has over another individual, be it bestowed by financial status, genetics or society. I don't believe in "white privilege" but I certainly believe in wealth privilege, money will get you further in life than any other aspect.
    I'm still not seeing how it's "privilege" as opposed to simply being differences in individuals. It's a well studied phenomenon that individuals who lack the ability to maintain their parents' wealth, or indeed create wealth, will lose it. The reason I object to the language of "privilege" is because it fosters this illusion that any success enjoyed by such an individual is therefore unearned and somehow not due to them. If we really want to go down that route, pretty much every trait, including propensity towards putting effort into things, is heritable. So at that point we're simply left with the fact that nature does not work in "equals" but that traits are passed down on bell curve distributions, simply because of how natural selection works, and this is across a huge spectrum of traits, not the cute cardboard cut out "intersectional" version taught in universities. Therefore... what?

    Yes, thank you for that random end sentence, I'm sure as a ex-chemistry undergraduate myself I'm well aware of the scientific method. The op, however presents no such scientific support for his opinion, only his own biased observations.
    They don't seem "biased" to me but to be speaking from experience. If you want to say this is not generalisable, that's where broader studies come in. I mean if you want to go to studies, the fate of feminist claims is even bleaker insofar as the West is concerned. Personally I am in agreement with the OP, that much of what goes on in venues like LinkedIn, or large corporates, regarding "inclusivity", is narcissistic ******y.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TCA2b)
    I'm still not seeing how it's "privilege" as opposed to simply being differences in individuals. It's a well studied phenomenon that individuals who lack the ability to maintain their parents' wealth, or indeed create wealth, will lose it. The reason I object to the language of "privilege" is because it fosters this illusion that any success enjoyed by such an individual is therefore unearned and somehow not due to them. If we really want to go down that route, pretty much every trait, including propensity towards putting effort into things, is heritable. So at that point we're simply left with the fact that nature does not work in "equals" but that traits are passed down on bell curve distributions, simply because of how natural selection works, and this is across a huge spectrum of traits, not the cute cardboard cut out "intersectional" version taught in universities. Therefore... what?



    They don't seem "biased" to me but to be speaking from experience. If you want to say this is not generalisable, that's where broader studies come in. I mean if you want to go to studies, the fate of feminist claims is even bleaker insofar as the West is concerned. Personally I am in agreement with the OP, that much of what goes on in venues like LinkedIn, or large corporates, regarding "inclusivity", is narcissistic ******y.
    To a large extent, genetics, and especially the genetic traits which code for desirable traits such as height, good features and intelligence isn't earned. It's inherited by random chance, by the luck of the draw. So in a sense those with the advantageous traits are privileged because they were bestowed upon them, not earned. Nature is unequal with its gifts, it's just a fact of life regrettably. So for that reason I have no objection with using the word "privilege" to describe someone smarter than I am or someone born into a richer family than I have.

    As for all this talk about inclusivity, I agree that it is mostly just lip service, if some feminists were really bothered about it they'd be sticking up for short guys and fighting Islam, which is a major source of oppression in today's world
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    To a large extent, genetics, and especially the genetic traits which code for desirable traits such as height, good features and intelligence isn't earned. It's inherited by random chance, by the luck of the draw. So in a sense those with the advantageous traits are privileged because they were bestowed upon them, not earned. Nature is unequal with its gifts, it's just a fact of life regrettably. So for that reason I have no objection with using the word "privilege" to describe someone smarter than I am or someone born into a richer family than I have.
    Fine, however don't think I am going to "privilege" the use of the word "privilege" with any more dignity than it deserves. To me it is just envy dressed up in a finer gown. Yes, most traits aren't "earned" - it's what you do with them that counts. Equally, I will not - and I suggest no one else does so either - sit there pining over whether or not I "deserved" to inherit a particular trait, as it is meaningless in the context of natural selection, nor will I allow it to rob me of a sense of pride in those traits I do possess. I think it runs into soul-destroying nihilism when it gets to the point of simply explaining away all, most, whatever quantum of failures or successes as hinging on some highly abstract distillation of the fact that natural selection produces bell curve distributions along certain traits. Ultimately the excuses eventually must fall away and what a person should be judged on is how well they use their traits.

    As for all this talk about inclusivity, I agree that it is mostly just lip service, if some feminists were really bothered about it they'd be sticking up for short guys and fighting Islam, which is a major source of oppression in today's world
    Agreed to that extent.
 
 
 

1,133

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.