Problematic Stuff

[Svartalf]

sure, she used to be, ribbit, ribbit

[Hermit]

The press has come up with speculations that Macpherson has had botox treatment, rhinoplasty procedure, lip injections, breast implants and whatnot for many years now. No evidence to support those claims has ever been provided. They are founded on no more than "To look like that at her age she must have".

[Scot Dutchy]

She looks 52!

[pErvinalia]

Which is a lot younger than you..

[Scot Dutchy]

I know but she looks a normal 52. Just wait another 8 years that is when the changes really start.

[Brian Peacock]

...
The reality is that the justification "feel uncomfortable" is the one that is generally used to support women only things - women feel uncomfortable if the work out with men, ride the train with men, etc.

Nice attempt to shift the burden there, but the justification I was referring to was for your charge that any single-sex event is necessarily a discrimination. What you have provided here is just another in a long line of assertions that it is.

Because if it's single-sex, then it excludes a sex because of sex. That's by definition "discrimination based on sex." If you're asking whether it's "bad" or not, well, that's a judgment call. But, if I say you can't walk through my front door unless you're a woman, then that's discrimination based on sex. I am making a distinction and it's based on sex. Sex discrimination. Women can walk through, men can't.

So, if a gym is men only, then it's discriminating against women. If a gym is women only, it's discrimination against men. It doesn't make it "not discrimination" if there are both women only and men only gyms. It makes it separate but equal, but it's still discrimination. Like if men and women had separate water fountains.

'Discrimination' in the sense we're using it here necessitates a 'bad' - or else why would you be charging feminism with facilitating it(?) In the social sense 'discrimination' reflects an undue distinction in favour of or against some nominal group based on some arbitrary measure or condition. This is what I'm challenging about your view: that a class for women, by women, concerning something pertaining to and particular to women (or the equivalent class for men) is not a discrimination because it's not rooted in an undue distinction based on some arbitrary measure or condition. Men and women's physiology is different and in the yoga class cited the course or instruction pertained to female physiology and therefore is particular to female participants. It's not unduly excluding men based on some arbitrary measure or condition, that is; in a discriminatory way, it simply isn't relevant to male physiology.

In other words, if men or women want to come together and talk about their particular bits-and-piece then this is not a discrimination against the other gender.

Now, when I raised the idea of a male equivalent, what one might call a 'lingam-centred class' for men with a male instructor, you bleated on about how that wouldn't be acceptable because, as you put it, "it would be criticized (by feminists) as sexist" and "hard cocks and spraying semen and whatnot" would be seen (by feminists) as a form of sexual harassment. I used the term 'bleat' deliberately here, because all you are offering is a weak, wavering cry which mistakenly presumes your assertions are facts before blaming and bemoaning feminism for the state or existence of these apparent truths.

... if men claim to "feel uncomfortable" around women, that's never been taken seriously. Shit, nobody takes the objection seriously that men don't want females walking into the men's room when they're standing at the urinal with their dicks out. That's phobia against trans and/or male identifying female body persons, if you were to say they shouldn't use the men's room. Feel uncomfortable? Tough shit.

'Anecdote' is not the plural of 'data', as they say - so let's get back to the issue eh? Single-sex events.

It's an example. is there a circumstance where a man "feeling uncomfortable" is given credence or weight at all? Where? What issue?

I'm not making a claim to truth here--that men 'feeling uncomfortable' is taken as an inadmissible justification for an objection to some-(undisclosed)-thing that women are doing--so switching the burden of your own argument is fallacious and self-defeating. If you feel that a man 'feeling uncomfortable' is never given any credence or weight in any circumstance on any issue then feel free to make that case.

Do you think that any single-sex event is necessarily a discrimination?

By definition, yes. I don't think it's necessarily bad, of course. But, it is discrimination.

'By definition' eh? In which case your point is resting entirely on an equivocation of the word 'discrimination'. If it's not necessarily bad it's merely a 'distinction' rather than a 'discrimination' in the common-or-garden sense we've been using that term so far. And before you come back to point out that we can use the term 'discriminate' simply to denote a selection or to note a categorical distinction, to 'discriminate on the basis of sex' as you've previously put it surely entails an undue, unjust or prejudiced distinction, one that unduly proposes or furthers the application of differential treatment on the basis of an arbitrary measure or condition (to wit, gender).

The fact that a golf club does not accept women as members is discrimination, for example. The fact that a book club does not accept men is also discrimination. Both based on sex.

Additionally, do you think that, for example, gender segregated educational establishments are a discrimination, that is; should boys be allowed to attend girls schools and vice-versa?

Yes, it is discrimination. What else is it? You think a school can say "no girls allowed" and it's not discriminating based on sex?

Again, I would be grateful if you made some effort to justify your point rather than simply asserting it before inviting me to disprove it to your satisfaction.

I can see you concluding that it's not bad or evil or undesirable. But, how can you possibly say it's not discrimination? What definition of discrimination are you using?

See my previous remarks re equivocation and shifting the burden of your own argument.

[Forty Two]

[Brian Peacock]

How many people to they employ? What's the average wage of their employees?

[pErvinalia]

I was just thinking this morning that we haven't heard about much problematic stuff lately. Are the regressive left still taking over Merca?

[JimC]

I was just thinking this morning that we haven't heard about much problematic stuff lately. Are the regressive left still taking over Merca?

Donald will fix those varmints!

[DRSB]

Did you know? Deep underground, federal employees process paperwork by hand in a long-outdated, inefficient system

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/nation ... reaucracy/

[Brian Peacock]

False flag! That's just what they want you to believe. In reality it's all processed by the the silicon mega-brains of our lizard overlords.

[Forty Two]

How many people to they employ? What's the average wage of their employees?

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the median annual salary for women working in Clinton’s Senate office was $40,791, and it was $56,500 for men. In the Clinton Foundation, the average pay for employees 1-4 years was $43,000 and 5 to 9 years was $63,000. So, looks like they hover right around the median household income in the US of about $50 to $55k.

the Clintons pay women less than men -- huge wage gape. With the Senate staff it was 72 cents on the dollar, and with the Clinton foundation it was 63 cents on the dollar, for women (according to the Weekly Standard's analysis.

But, so what? What does it matter? She thinks its horrible that CEOs make 300 times the median worker makes, and she makes 500 times that.

[Forty Two]

I was just thinking this morning that we haven't heard about much problematic stuff lately. Are the regressive left still taking over Merca?

Indeed, just watch your average Bernie and Hillary supporter.

[Forty Two]