A double standard.......

[Darkness]

I was talking to my roomate about the lady (I don't know her name) who recently qualified for the PGA tour. We ended up having a good conversation about double standards, particularly in sports. I had never thought about it this way, but I felt that he made a good point. The fact is that a lot of women want to play in the men's league and say that they're equals, and etc. But if a man( not saying that he would) wanted to play in the women's league of the same sport, the argument would be made that he was stronger, faster, more powerful, or whatever than any of the women, and this would be unfair. My roomie went on to say that this was a double standard. I agree. It was something that I had never thought of this way, but now I see exactly what he means. [color=red] After reading this, how do you feel about it?[/color]

[Omar Harris]

Throughout the history of society, men have been characterized as being the "stronger" of the two genders, so a guy playing in the women's league would look awkward and'or be frowned upon by men who feel that it is weak to be "girly". The American society often tries too hard to make everyone equal.

[NorykoAngelcry]

[COLOR=darkred][SIZE=1]While I had not heard of the lady entering the PGA, here in Tennessee, there was a lady who is racing on a small scale racing circuit. I have to laugh about this, because there was this one race where she made a mistake, and somehow did a no-no. I am not too sure on the specifics. . since I really don't care about racing (well, besides F-1), but this one guy became totally animated about wanting her out of the circuit. I thought of this because you mentioned how women are wanting to be equals. Well, I suppose this is somewhat related, since the ONE mistake she makes, he is down her throat, screaming his head off of how reckless she was. If a guy had done this, it would have just been a day at the race?

I am competitive, but in no way sexist towards women. If a woman offers me a challenge, I gladly welcome it. Some people think it is sexy, I just find it well worth my time!

Now while I am not sure this is the same subject, I think that it still works in here...though I am slightly hesitant on how to word this so not to sound offensive. Oh well, here goes =P

Comedy - Why is it alright for black comedians to slam white people, but not alright for white people to slam on black people?? If white people make jokes about black people, they are racist, but the other way around, it is comedy?! This has really bothered me, especially since actors like Chris Rock and others make a living off of it. The 'Kings of Comedy' (btw, who gave them that title?) also slam on white people a lot. I have never heard of any white comedians putting down black people. Sure, there are maybe one or two out there, but almost every black comedian seems to revolve their routines around it. I really just don't get that. Can anyone explain it?? I don't mean to come off sounding really angry about this, and hope that no one thinks I myself am racist (which, I am NOT!! - just want to make that point clear), I am just VERY curious about this. It is also in movies and television shows. Ok, I will not talk about this anymore, just thought I would ask about that. . sorry if this offends anyone, that is the last thing I wanted to do with this question.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Omar Harris]

I was going to mention something like that. Actually, Chris Rock is probably the only comedian I've seen whose career thrives on black and white jokes. Black comedians do make white jokes like
"White people need to whoop yo kids"
"White peopl are the only people that see aliens"
"White people are the only people getting killed sky-diving and stuff like that"
But then a lot of them wil go about and make jokes about other black people
"The Highest black people will ever get in on weed" (I know I don't do it in a funny way but work with me here) or makes jokes abut ebonic. A few white comedians do use racial stereotypes as joke, like they may talk in stereotypical black, asian, or hispanic voices or such but are considered "racists" when they use something like dergatory race-related words. I find a lot of white comedians would rather use other types of jokes over racial stereotypes, unless in slapstick movies.

The reason for having a guy excluded from the Women's league while a girl can perform in the men's league is probably because since men are the "stroner" gender, it is considered "un-manly" for us to be challenged in sports by women, especially since most sports are "male-driven". I don't mind female competition because I'll be the first to admit that I suck with a capital S at sports. If a girl beat me, it is no more an embarrasment than when Big Joe down the street beat me. Guys, generally, don't like feeling threatened by the abilities of women since it often considered a matter of persona pride

[Darkness]

Yeah, I'm black and the comedy thing bugs me too. Race-wise, there are alot of things that I see that bugs me when it comes to race. I do think that here are quite a few things that non-majority races do that are racist in themselves. But I can only hope that things improve. It's all we can do.

[Semjaza]

Actually the one of the most famous abduction cases happened a long time ago and the "victims" were a black man and his wife... So whatever lol.

I am not going to discuss the rest of what's being brought up here as I don't like the way that this thread could possibly be headed in.

[Omar Harris]

The whole race thing sort of got off topic. We're just talking about wether or not what was said in the first post was double standard.

[Kent]

I just find it amazing that this subject has come up and been spoken of with out any name calling and racist stuff. Im very proud of all who have spoken before me, i comend you all.

As for the double standards, they are there all right. Im not sure if i want to get into the many that exist on a race level, but on the gender level, i can do nothing but laugh.

Fact is that men have more muscle mass.
But, when your racing a car it doesnt matter what muscle mass you have. I think women should do what they want and what they can.

I only have one line to be drawn, military duties. Women are not capable of the same things as men in this arena because the military is about muscle, strength, etc.

If a women wants to be in the military, that is ok. But infantry and special forces should be off limits. Those are postions where youve gotta be the best. And that is compared to the rest of the world, not the rest of the women in the U.S.A.

I do feel there are many double standards, infact i feel many of them being that im a white male of middle class american standing.

which reminds me, why do i have to do better than "minorities" to get in to college. Like on the S.A.T. test. Oh wait, I said I wouldnt get into the race double standard, I dont think I need to, its obvious to me and I think every one else knows it too.

Hey, there may be double standards but theres not much we can do.

[Mnemolth]

I'm not going to preach here about what's right and what's wrong (at least not for the moment ;)). People who have made up their minds will think what they want to think. But for those who still have an open mind, here are some questions you should consider:

1. What advantages does a girl have in playing in a sport with males? If men are 'stronger and 'faster', what's she gonna do? Distract them by flashing her boobs at them?? If she's at a disadvantage, what exactly is the harm in letting her play?

On the other hand, if we assume that men are 'stronger' and 'faster', what advantages does a guy have in playing in a sport with girls? I think that's quite obvious. If there is an advantage based just on sex, then isn't it fair that such an advantage is not allowed?


2. Discrimination and minority groups. If you have a minority group that, ON AVERAGE, is OVER-REPRESENTED in jails, and UNDER-REPRESENTED at universities/colleges, that, ON AVERAGE, has a MUCH lower level of income than the majority group, and a group that has a KNOWN and LONG history of being discriminated against, then the question is how do you even up the 'playing field'?

Take an example. If everyone to enter university or college were, let's say, to need a certain score on the SAT, to get in, then isn't that fair? I mean minority groups or disadvantaged ones can study hard and do the test just like everyone else, right? All they have to do is make that score, right?

Well maybe, maybe not. Let's say student A is from minority group and student B is from the main group. Let's assume that the parents of student A never went to college, in fact no one in his/her direct family graduated from university. Then let's assume B's father did go to university, got his degree, and so was able to earn a decent living for his family. Family A is poor, family B is middle class.

If student A and student B were to take a test, and assuming the test is fair, who do you think would score better?

The theory behind affirmative action is to 'break' the cycle. By lowering the score for student A to get in, it is hoped that he will graduate, get a good job, and that by the time he has a child, that child would NOT need the lower score but may compete on the same terms as the main group. Usually this takes more than a generation (I'm just using a single generation example to illustrate the principle).

Well, that's all fine and good, but what about NOW? Isn't it unfair for student B to get rejected from university even though he may have a HIGHER score than student A? Kinda sounds unfair right? Well, its only unfair if you think they both were competing in a 'level' playing field, that is, it is only unfair if you think there was not discrimination against the minority group in the first place, if you ignore history.

But demmit, what about student B? His dad got in with the same results he did, why should he be punished for something he didn't do, something that happened decades or more ago? Some would say it is STILL going on, others might say, simply 'tough'.

What's the alternative? To kick student A out and keep student B would be to continue the 'cycle'. A doesn't get a degree, his qualifications are lower, he goes for a job and is beaten by some other guy with better qualifications, he gets a lower class job, with less money. He gets married and has kids, his kids get the same scores he did, don't make it into university, don't get the good jobs because they are not qualified, brings up their children with lower income, and so on...

Someone has to break the cycle.

[b]IMPORTANT: this was a grossly exaggeraed example to illustrate a principle. Also note that AVERAGE person in a group, not those who may be very successful/unsuccessful.[/b]

As for minority groups being allowed to make fun of main groups and not the other way round, the assumption is similar, namely that the main group can take care of itself because it has a lot more power. You can't do it the other way round, because by DEFINITION, the minority group is vulnerable to majority rule. Basically, the majority can protect itself, the minority can't.

[Kent]

My thing with the above cycle is that all the tactics used do nothing but lower the bar, and when you lower the bar, overall quality lowers. It doesnt make it so a lower achiever achieves more, it just makes it so the lower achievment is now enough.

I dont want minorities to live in poverty. I often feel more than horrible because most of what I have was given to me. But, both of my parents were born poor as hell, my fathers parents were both addicts of some sort and neither had the money to send him to school any where. my mother was so poor they had to use scraps from dumpsters to make their own clothes.

How did they end up...
My father worked a job until he had the money for school. Then at a community college he worked till he had the oppurtunity to go to a higher school. Eventually he got the chance to go to johns hopkins university on a scholarship and joined the rotc. He then graduated number 1 in his rotc class with an engineering degree, came out as an officer and went straight to vietnam. He stayed in the army until he died.

My mother, worked as a waitress until she could afford community college and then payed her own way through school at georgetown university. Graduated with a political science degree and a journalism degree. Met and married my father and traveled the world working job to job as they moved, usually working for the u.s. government in each different country.

now me... failed out of school once after all was given to me.
took a year away realizing where I would be if I continued this. Defied the statistics and went back to school, now Im working harder than ever before. Where am I gonna end up? I dont know, but Im gonna make sure its not the gutter.

[Mnemolth]

Huh?? How is overall quality gonna be lowered? The places offered to minority groups represent a VERY small proportion of the overall population of universities/colleges. Its unlikely that they will have an impact on the curriculum.

And even if this was so, all you have to do is keep the standard high by continuing with the same level for passing. SO even though minority groups may be able to get into colleges/universities with lower scores, they will be competing at the SAME level at the university/college. Just cos they can get in doesn't mean they can get through. Nor does it mean they can get through with honours. What it does mean, though, is that they are given a chance.

[Kent]

Well spoken and your point is taken.

I did not think about the fact that requirments for getting in being lowered doesnt mean passing requirments are also lowered.

Perfect example, did anyone hear know that the "distinguished gentlemen" from massachusets by the name of Ted Kennedy got into harvard on his name but didnt get out on that. Infact he was kicked out for cheating.

That goes to show, just because you get in doesnt mean you get to graduate.

I suppose the only thing left is the fact that only a certain number of people can get into these schools and I took it very personally when my buddies and I had to compete to get into a school and my minority friends who were all equals with me, got in on their lower scores.

Oh well... Im just gonna have to try harder, right.

But i do feel it nessacary to mention that all schools in the U.S.A. do have lower requirments for minorties. Only a very small percentage of schools keep a completely even level of requirments for all their students.

[zidane11]

I feel that men and women should be treated equally, although they usually tend to have different physical abilities. It's just how people are born.

[Darkness]

First, let me say that I appreciate the manner of speech that everyone is using. I have my agreements and disagreements with the way things are now and with how they were. No one has made an incorrect statement. Like I said earlier, I am a "minority" and a college senior at an university. I graduated in the top three percent of my class and did well of the ACT, so the "rule" didn't apply to me. But, I want you all to know how important it is to give someone a chance. You never know how bright someone might shine if they are given the opportunity.

[Kent]

I also agree with darkness and commend him for his personal accomplishments.

More over the reason Im replying is because there was a small thing in the wording of an above reply and I just thought Id mention, no one, especially myself thinks theres anything good about the way things used to be.

good job every body.

I also think males and females should be treated equal, but that doesnt mean we are capable of the same things.

[wrist cutter]

So basically, minority groups need us to wipe their a[i][/i]ss? Is that what you're saying? Because of their background, they do not need to work as hard... I fail to see the logic.

What on earth does it matter if your parents went to college or not? As long as the option of going to college is available, the standards should be the same for everyone. We're all people - we all have brains. Those with good ones should be accepted... no matter what their background may be.

Maybe think of it in this sense - should a rich black guy have a better chance of getting into college than a poor white guy?

The playing field is even - everyone is human. Nobody needs to be treated as 'not as intelligent'.

[Mnemolth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i]
[B]So basically, minority groups need us to wipe their a[i][/i]ss? Is that what you're saying? Because of their background, they do not need to work as hard... I fail to see the logic.[/B][/QUOTE]

You're missing the point entirely.

Its not that because of their background they don't need to work as hard, quite the opposite. Just because of their background, they shouldn't need to work HARDER than everyone else. That is the point.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i]
[B]What on earth does it matter if your parents went to college or not? As long as the option of going to college is available, the standards should be the same for everyone. We're all people - we all have brains. Those with good ones should be accepted... no matter what their background may be.[/B][/QUOTE]

What on earth does it matter whether parents having gone to college or not matter? Well, if they did go to college, chances are they're better educated and qualified. Being more educated and qualified probably means they are more likely to get better jobs with better pay. If student B has such parents he is likely to have certain advantages. These break down into three basic categories.

1) Knowledge.

Parents are going to know the value of education and show more interest in it on the kid's behalf. Also parents will have read more and so can impart more knowledge to their children. This is via a process of osmoses, your day-to-day interactions.

2) Environment.

Parents with better education and income are likely to be better able to take care of their families. This means providing a suitable nevironment for the child to learn. It means the kid's schooling doesn't have to be CONTINUALLY interrupted by family crises, eg the child may not have to look after smaller siblings ALL the time because both parents are working long hours due to low pay. If both middle class parents work, maybe they can afford a baby sitter. The child may not also be forced to work part time to supplement the family's income. He may still do so, but that would be for other reasons, like developing character, or learning to budget or buy things he wants. It won't be because his mom and dad don't have enough money to put a roof over their heads and feed them properly.

3) Income. Better education and better income also means better neighbourhoods, better schools, and even private tuition.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i][B]
Maybe think of it in this sense - should a rich black guy have a better chance of getting into college than a poor white guy?[/B][/QUOTE]

I was never talking about individuals (there's an easy way to fix this anyway, ie by income and asset testing for scholarships). Are you saying that the AVERAGE black man's income is the SAME as that of the AVERAGE white man? I believe not. In fact, I believe that the AVERAGE white man's income is SO SUBSTANTIALLY higher than that of the AVERAGE black man in America, it demonstrates discrimination in the society, discrimination that needs to be rectified. And you don't just put any black people in college, you put the BEST and BRIGHTEST black people.

What needs to be understood is that there WILL be white folk who score better than black people and they WILL get into college. Then they'd be black folk who score so much less than the entry score they WILL be REJECTED. The only time it MIGHT be contentious is when a black man and a white dude score about the same, then affirmative discrimination may favour the black person.

Is that unfair for the white guy who is so close? Sure. But that's life. As long as the disparity between black and white are so obvious and so disadvantageous to one group and so advantageous to another group, then we must ACTIVELY try to narrow the gap. Once they are both roughly in the same ball park, once they both roughly have the same advantages and disadvantages and live under the same kind of conditions, then we can do away with preferential treatment of minority groups.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i][B]
The playing field is even - everyone is human. Nobody needs to be treated as 'not as intelligent'. [/B][/QUOTE]

As long as the rules of the game favour one group over another, it is unfair to ask everyone to play by the same rules. Its not a matter of treating some people as 'not as intelligent' at all. Its more a question of giving some people a CHANCE to DEMONSTRATE their intelligence, a chance they would NOT otherwise have had.

Its simple. It makes sense. And yes, it would hurt some people, but it will help a lot more. And in the long run, it'd be good for society as a whole.

[wrist cutter]

I still completely disagree with the points you made. Especially this -

"Just because of their background, they shouldn't need to work HARDER than everyone else."

What happens to them in their home life is their problem. If they can't do as well as another HUMAN BEING on a test, than they should not be accepted (whether or not the test is an example of intelligence is another debate), regardless of bad parents/home life whatever. It's like giving them pity points and that's ridiculous as I see it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to give any minority special treatment and they shouldn't give me any because I'm a majority.

[Kent]

Hey, if your gonna go with the thats life response, then this whole thread is bunk because... thats life.

Really what Im hear to mention is that when blacks and white score similarly on test, blacks get the "goods" hands down. Question is, how much of a difference is needed to make things even. Well when i graduated from high school I needed to get atleast a 1000 on the SAT to match a black guys 700. Thats no exageration either.

I also want to mention that income statistics for a black male versus a white male are really far from being fair. First off, the white population is twice as large so even with the same number of poor folks on each side, the whites will seem to make more just because the remainder will be making money, and that means there is a total lack of any input on the minority side to match the exceeding population of the majority.

Second, when 80 percent of the prison population is black, that means there is an awful lot of fellas not making any money at all, yet they are still in the equation.

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"

I also want to mention that even with all Ive said above, I still know that it is true that the black male population doesnt make the same money as the white. Im sorry about that and I will always feel bad about what I have because of that.

But if I was an insensitive person I would have to say what the post above me said... sorry but thats life.

[wrist cutter]

Of course blacks make up a lot of the prison population. Where is most crime committed in America? The ghetto. Who makes up most of the ghetto population? You guessed it.

Again, I really must point out it isn't my fault for any problems [i]any[/i] individual has (for the most part). I don't care what color they are, we're all in the same boat.

Think of it this way - should basketball teams accept white people for doing their damndest, even if there is a much more capable black guy to do the job?

[Mitch]

[color=red] No sex is better than the other in my opnion. There's always different flaws to match up and even out the strengths. But I think that it's true that there are double standards, for those who don't believe in that no sex is better than the other. I mean, we are the same form of lifeforms--females and males--so I don't think any is better over the other.[/color]

[Justin]

Men and women should be treated equally. However, we have to face facts; there are certain things that men can do that women can't and certain things that women can do(endure is probably a better word) that men can't. So we're not equal on all levels.

-Justin

[Mnemolth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i]
[B]Of course blacks make up a lot of the prison population. Where is most crime committed in America? The ghetto. Who makes up most of the ghetto population? You guessed it.

Again, I really must point out it isn't my fault for any problems [i]any[/i] individual has (for the most part). I don't care what color they are, we're all in the same boat.

Think of it this way - should basketball teams accept white people for doing their damndest, even if there is a much more capable black guy to do the job? [/B][/QUOTE]

Again, you've managed to entirely miss the point. If everyone was 'in the same boat', there'd be no racial problems in America. It is precisely BECAUSE not everyone is 'in the same boat' that SOME (and I emphasis this) differential treatment is applied.

You don't pick a black person because he tried the hardest, you pick him because he is the best one for the job, GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. This is not about pity, its about giving a minority an EQUAL CHANCE to prove himself. If he does, great, if he doesn't then he's out.

In your example, how do you determine that a person is capable, ie makes the team? Let's assume you do this by testing how good they are at shooting (there are other skills yes but for illustration purposes let's keep things simple). You put the black guy on the free throw line, and you put the white guy outside, on the 3-pt throw, then you just give them both 10 throws and count how many make it. The higher score is the one more capable. Gee, the black guy scored higher, that must mean he is more capable. He should make the cut, no?

What's wrong with this picture? The problem is you can't just count how many baskets go in, you also have to take into account where the guys are shooting from!

And if you haven't still got it, let me provide one final example:

You have two guys doing the 100M race. How do you determine who is faster? The first guy that crosses the finishing line right? This happens to be the white dude. This makes him the better sprinter, right? He is faster right? Trouble is the white guy had jumped the gun and is already 10M ahead before the starting gun fires. So what do you do? Normally you would just restart, the only trouble is we can't travel back in time and change our mistakes (ie you can't go back and white wash the effects of slavery and discrimination and blah blah blah). The only thing we can do when we see the white guy already 10M ahead before the starting gun is fired, is to then REDUCE the finishing line for the black runner by 10M.

Again if you were to keep the finishing line the same for both parties, and say the first one through wins, is patently unfair. On the surface it looks fair, that's how we see races run, that's what comes intuitively to mind, but to think like this is a mistake. Cos it matters not only who finishes first but WHERE THEY STARTED FROM.

And if you're saying, 'I'm not responsible', then maybe the analogy you're looking for is a 4 x 100M Relay, with you as the last runner. You didn't bolt before the Baton was passed to you. You didn't break any rules. The trouble is, the first runner on your team jumped the gun. So does that make you responsible? No. Does that make it fair that you should be deemed faster than the black kid who ran the last leg of the race just because you crossed the line before he did? No.

Of course people will believe what they want to believe, and 'w*nking' on internet Boards is hardly gonna change anyone's perceptions...*shrugs*

As for the women/men thing, if you're saying women shouldn't be in frontline physical combat positions, my question to you is why? If you're gonna say well men are just more physically stronger and agressive than girls, then my answer to you is sure, I agree, IN GENERAL. If the criteria is strength and aggression (again simplifying for illustration purposes), then shouldn't THOSE attributes/traits be the things that determine a person's suitability, and not the person's sex?

Because when you say NO women should be in the frontline infantry positions, what you're really saying is ALL women are weaker and less agggressive than ALL men. And that's obviously not true.

[Kent]

I still think that if you make one person advance at the cost of another, you are doing exactly what you were trying to fight against.

Instead of giving a freebie and letting people get by on less, you should concentrate on helping the less fortunate to work up to the level nessacary to "cut it" and succed.

I dont think anyone wants people to be unhappy or poor, but I dont think your going to find many people willing to trade places with the unfortunate simply because they feel bad.

I would rather help someone help themself then just give them what they want.

amazing I liked something I heard Al Sharpton say "if i knock you out of your chair, thats my fault, but if I come back next week and your still laying there, thats your fault."

Lets try to help people meet standards, not lower the standards so the same effort gets them to the new level.

does any of that makes sense? sometimes I just bable, sorry.

[Mnemolth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i]
[B]I would rather help someone help themself then just give them what they want.

amazing I liked something I heard Al Sharpton say "if i knock you out of your chair, thats my fault, but if I come back next week and your still laying there, thats your fault."

Lets try to help people meet standards, not lower the standards so the same effort gets them to the new level.

does any of that makes sense? sometimes I just bable, sorry. [/B][/QUOTE]

*rips hair out in frustration*

Okay. :D :D :D

Maybe its my fault. The word REDUCE in my example might have misled people. Take the same example with the same race, what you want to do is freeze the white guy on the 10M, get the black guy to walk up to the 10M line and then resume the race. This way the finishing line will be the SAME for both parties. Does that make it clearer?

You get blacks into university so that they can help themselves! So they can have better qualifications, get better jobs, so that their children WON'T need affirmative action or its ilk! I thought I explained this above...

You don't get the brightest blacks into university and then just rubber stamp their degrees and shoe them into 6 figure salary jobs. They have to work for their degrees just like everyone else. They have to pass the same exams, etc.

Hmm...maybe I should stop posting in this thread for a bit. People don't seem to read my posts or understand them, or at least choose not to.

Think people. Think for yourselves. Don't just believe OR dismiss what you hear and read. Weigh up the arguments.