Professor safety threatened for opposing "Day of Absence"

[Menzel]

5 minutes ago, milton75 said:

If the only purpose if the "self organising" is to exclude anyone, then I'd certainly question it.
 

That's not what I asked. Or indeed, an absolute reach. 

[milton75]

That's not what I asked. Or indeed, an absolute reach. 

I didn't say it was what you asked. It seemed germane to make the point however, given the silliness of the cinema affair being discussed.

[Menzel]

Why aren't women allowed to watch a film together?

[The DA]

3 minutes ago, Menzel said:

Why aren't women allowed to watch a film together?

Or men allowed to set up men-only clubs?

[Menzel]

Are men oppressed by gender these days? 

[milton75]

Are men oppressed by gender these days? 

No, and no-one is arguing that. What I'm saying is that setting up exclusionary situations is not palatable, nor is it a good way to bring us closer to a gender-neutral society.

[milton75]

Look at it this way. You mentioned racial minorities self organising earlier. Would you support black men setting up a black men only screening of a film? That would still exclude women, who are, as you reference, oppressed by gender.

Then we'd have to decide if the women were as oppressed by gender as the black guys were oppressed by race, being as our society's isn't yet equal.

Personally I'd prefer to say that any oppression, exclusion, discrimination is wrong, and that our responsibility is to move society away from it in any form.

[Menzel]

Yes; I'm surprised you're not aware of intersectionality. 

[EdgarusQPFC]

1 hour ago, milton75 said:

No, and no-one is arguing that. What I'm saying is that setting up exclusionary situations is not palatable, nor is it a good way to bring us closer to a gender-neutral society.

 

1 hour ago, milton75 said:

Look at it this way. You mentioned racial minorities self organising earlier. Would you support black men setting up a black men only screening of a film? That would still exclude women, who are, as you reference, oppressed by gender.

Then we'd have to decide if the women were as oppressed by gender as the black guys were oppressed by race, being as our society's isn't yet equal.

Personally I'd prefer to say that any oppression, exclusion, discrimination is wrong, and that our responsibility is to move society away from it in any form.

Said much better than i possibly could have myself, 100% this.

[Newbornbairn]

2 hours ago, Menzel said:

Why aren't women allowed to watch a film together?

Because if you get too many women together in the one place their periods synchronise or something.

 

It's also a bad thing in that they might pick up ideas from each other.

 

Unless it's a kitchen, a very big kitchen. That would be ok.

[invergowrie arab]

4 hours ago, milton75 said:

Don't know.

But that shouldn't exclude him, me, or anyone else, from calling out a clearly retrograde idea. Unless you feel different?

This isn't a freedom of speech issue you utter thicko.

Did anyone suggest at any point it was a view that shouldn't be expressed?

Careful readers will note I was challenging the view and looking for a response. That's how conversations work.

[milton75]

1 hour ago, Menzel said:

Yes; I'm surprised you're not aware of intersectionality. 

It's nothing to do with intersectionality. It's to do with whether segregation is a good or bad thing. I'm saying bad, irrespective of whether you dual-compare or not.
That's my point, and it's one you're choosing to ignore.

So far you've complained that I misrepresented you when I didn't, and then a couple of posts later asked if "men [are] oppressed by gender these days"; a point that no-one was making. Rather than start complaining about you asking it I've explained my position. You've continued to offer no sensible reason that exclusionary practices of any sort should be seen as a good thing.

[The DA]

I'm not sure whether Menzel is serious or not, what with the reddie for NewBornBairn and all.  'Intersectionality'?  Wiki'd it and I've found a few new -isms and phobias to indulge in.

[milton75]

28 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

This isn't a freedom of speech issue you utter thicko.

Did anyone suggest at any point it was a view that shouldn't be expressed?

Careful readers will note I was challenging the view and looking for a response. That's how conversations work.

I'll ignore the insult, as I suspect you're still a bit sensitive after the Hamilton game.

I will, however, make this point - you don't get to define how conversations work. You asked "what [his] plan for removing institutional inequality" is. I responded, saying that while I didn't know the answer, it shouldn't preclude anyone from saying that further segregation wasn't a good idea. That is also conversation. It may not have been the specific conversation you wanted you have, but, again, see the point about you not getting to make the rules.

"Hey everyone, the world's not a fair place. we have centuries of institutional inequality being imposed by a white patriarchal society. What should we do about it?"
"Let's set up clubs that exclude white men; that'll make the world a fairer place".
The above parody conversation basically sums up the facile nature of these scenarios.
I don't have the answers as to how to make society better. I'm just prepared to bet that breaking down barriers rather than building more of them is likely to be a slightly more constructive way forward.

[Cerberus]

On the scale of gender inequality in the world, this doesn't even register.

Reel it in a bit.

[Jambomo]

37 minutes ago, milton75 said:

"Hey everyone, the world's not a fair place. we have centuries of institutional inequality being imposed by a white patriarchal society. What should we do about it?"

 

"Let's set up clubs that exclude white men; that'll make the world a fairer place".
The above parody conversation basically sums up the facile nature of these scenarios.
I don't have the answers as to how to make society better. I'm just prepared to bet that breaking down barriers rather than building more of them is likely to be a slightly more constructive way forward.

This bit is your main problem. Why do you expect groups that are marginalised and still face huge inequality to try and make the world fairer? To do something that the "White Patriarchal Society" hasn't managed to do in all these years? Why expect them to be better than us, or more tolerant than us, or hold out any hand of friendship and equality to us? We don't do it for them.

Minority groups want to have their own space because they can't feel accepted and safe in shared spaces, they want to speak about their experiences and culture without fear of someone coming along and giving them shit for it.

The reason this seems unbalanced to us is because we can only see it from the perspective of being excluded. The reality is we don't have as much to fear from society as these groups do, we get jobs if we deserve them, we get houses if we can afford them, we rarely suffer because of our skin colour. We are getting a taste of what it is like and we can't take it.

It may not be the most constructive way of solving things, and women only screenings of Wonder Woman does seem to be segregation for the sake of it, but equally seeing grown men cry that they can't go to those screenings of it is really pathetic.

[strichener]

8 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

This bit is your main problem. Why do you expect groups that are marginalised and still face huge inequality to try and make the world fairer? To do something that the "White Patriarchal Society" hasn't managed to do in all these years? Why expect them to be better than us, or more tolerant than us, or hold out any hand of friendship and equality to us? We don't do it for them.

Minority groups want to have their own space because they can't feel accepted and safe in shared spaces, they want to speak about their experiences and culture without fear of someone coming along and giving them shit for it.

The reason this seems unbalanced to us is because we can only see it from the perspective of being excluded. The reality is we don't have as much to fear from society as these groups do, we get jobs if we deserve them, we get houses if we can afford them, we rarely suffer because of our skin colour. We are getting a taste of what it is like and we can't take it.

It may not be the most constructive way of solving things, and women only screenings of Wonder Woman does seem to be segregation for the sake of it, but equally seeing grown men cry that they can't go to those screenings of it is really pathetic.

The reason that it appears unbalanced is because it is unbalanced. 

Discrimination for any reason is discrimination and is not somehow acceptable if you happen to be some ethnic, gender or other some other identity mechanism minority.  To argue otherwise would require some logic ladder of levels of suffering and even within these identifiable groups there is discrimination.  An example of this would be that even within the Black community, the Haitians feel that they are discriminated against by other Blacks.

[milton75]

57 minutes ago, Cerberus said:

On the scale of gender inequality in the world, this doesn't even register.

This is true, but if you're suggesting that we shouldn't be filling up this forum squabbling about trivial points, I must object most strenuously.

[milton75]

26 minutes ago, Jambomo said:

This bit is your main problem. Why do you expect groups that are marginalised and still face huge inequality to try and make the world fairer? To do something that the "White Patriarchal Society" hasn't managed to do in all these years? Why expect them to be better than us, or more tolerant than us, or hold out any hand of friendship and equality to us? We don't do it for them.

Minority groups want to have their own space because they can't feel accepted and safe in shared spaces, they want to speak about their experiences and culture without fear of someone coming along and giving them shit for it.

The reason this seems unbalanced to us is because we can only see it from the perspective of being excluded. The reality is we don't have as much to fear from society as these groups do, we get jobs if we deserve them, we get houses if we can afford them, we rarely suffer because of our skin colour. We are getting a taste of what it is like and we can't take it.

It may not be the most constructive way of solving things, and women only screenings of Wonder Woman does seem to be segregation for the sake of it, but equally seeing grown men cry that they can't go to those screenings of it is really pathetic.

I agree with the general principle you're taking, but your argument is a bit of a strawman.

Firstly, I haven't said that I expect better of anyone. I don't expect very much of anyone, and I'm rarely surprised by the stupid things people get up to. I do, however, reserve the right to call something out as stupid or retrograde if it is.

Also, no-one is saying that anyone, whether identified as a "minority" (women not being a minority, but I know what you mean) or not shouldn't have shared spaces where they can be accepted and safe. If we were, then women's refuges and all sorts would be off the table, and such madness. That's a different argument to the ones here, albeit a fair point.

Lastly, I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone here is crying about this cinema nonsense. I might be tempted to wail a bit if my job was being put at risk for trying to have an open and honest debate like the chap in the OP, but that's a different thing.

[Jambomo]

2 minutes ago, milton75 said:

I agree with the general principle you're taking, but your argument is a bit of a strawman.

Firstly, I haven't said that I expect better of anyone. I don't expect very much of anyone, and I'm rarely surprised by the stupid things people get up to. I do, however, reserve the right to call something out as stupid or retrograde if it is.

Also, no-one is saying that anyone, whether identified as a "minority" (women not being a minority, but I know what you mean) or not shouldn't have shared spaces where they can be accepted and safe. If we were, then women's refuges and all sorts would be off the table, and such madness. That's a different argument to the ones here, albeit a fair point.

Lastly, I could be wrong, but I don't think anyone here is crying about this cinema nonsense. I might be tempted to wail a bit if my job was being put at risk for trying to have an open and honest debate like the chap in the OP, but that's a different thing.

The first bit was more of a response to your parody conversation so I don't mean "you" in that sense, I just mean the problem in that argument.

I think as you identify, a lot of the conversations around segregated events should be around its purpose and reason for being. Where there are singular events aimed at encouraging participation where people may otherwise be afraid or unwilling because of facing inequality around it then I think there can be a case for them. As you say, women's shelters, mens support groups for health or whatever. I just don't think its anymore helpful to shout about how bad it is that these people are excluding us (not you, in general) without trying to understand the reasons and motivation behind it.

Nobody on here is crying about the cinema thing, but I have read people doing so elsewhere. I just think it shows an awful lack of self-awareness to be arguing about it rather than seeing it through the lens of people who face such injustice everyday and on a much larger scale.

I do agree that the case in the OPP is ridiculous though. The professor is well within his rights to express his feelings on the matter and should not face the sack for doing so. I agree with the poster before who said (something like) it was a part of a "talking but not listening culture" (sorry, paraphrasing there!). I think that is a very true reflection on aspects of society today.