when is referencing a trend discriminatory, and when not?

[Rascolnikova]

I think this question is central to many discrimination discussions.

If one says, "there is a trend for women to be physically weaker than men" most here would consider that to be discriminatory.

If one says, "there is a trend for blacks to be poorer than whites in the United States," it may or may not be considered discriminatory here. However, I think the description of such a trend, far from being implicitly racist, is one of the most useful means of proving that racism is still widespread in American culture.


You might say that the fundamental difference lies in whether the reference is obviously intended to draw attention to something implicit to the subgroup, or obviously intended to draw attention to something implicit in the culture surrounding the subgroup. This is a useful distinction to be aware of, but I don't think it's the sole distinction relevant to my question.

For example, there are some people who are objectively, in a genetically determined way less physically and/or mentally able than most of the population. Referencing the fact that they are less able, and that this lesser ability is implicit to their group, does not mean that one is advocating discrimination against them.

Another possible distinguishing factor would be the intentions of the person referencing the trend, but by this standard anyone who talks about the divine qualities and calling (motherhood, obviously) of women, and how they are "different, but equal" to men is off the hook.


The best distinguishing factor that I've come up with is whether the trend actually exists or not, although this is by no means failsafe.

Thoughts, everyone?

[Bitter Ashes]

I'm sure it's more complex than this, but isnt it where there's implications that somebody is a worse worker due to sexuality, race, gender, etc the point where it becomes discriminatory?

There's more to it than that I'm sure, but my brains a bit fried at this time of night. It is a very intresting question though and I'm eager to see the responses.

[mikelepore]

Referencing the fact that they are less able, and that this fact is implicit to their group, does not mean that one is advocating discrimination against them.

If you realize that, then why write a post about "referencing" and "saying"? Discrimination has nothing to do with "references."

Discrimination is an action or a policy, or support for an action or policy.

If someone thinks that the mean of the distribution for physical strength is different for the two sexes, that's only discrimination in the sense of the word that means "discernment" or "recognition." It's never discrimination is the way the word is used in the cause of civil liberties.

If they use that belief to advise an industry not to hire people who are in a population group, then it becomes discrimination.

[Devrim]

If one says, "there is a trend for women to be physically weaker than men" most here would consider that to be discriminatory.

Men tend to be physically stronger than women. This is true. What do you mean that people consider it to be discriminatory?

Devrim

[Rascolnikova]

If you realize that, then why write a post about "referencing" and "saying"? Discrimination has nothing to do with "references."

Discrimination is an action or a policy, or support for an action or policy.

If someone thinks that the mean of the distribution for physical strength is different for the two sexes, that's only discrimination in the sense of the word that means "discernment" or "recognition." It's never discrimination is the way the word is used in the cause of civil liberties.

If they use that belief to advise an industry not to hire people who are in a population group, then it becomes discrimination.

Two things.

First; your view is hardly taken for granted here. Edit: this applies to Devrim's post as well.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/sexist-imply-women-t103189/index.html

Second; words are a kind of action, as evidenced by, for example, the way we define rape. (see posts 54-58 here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/date-rape-and-t106221/index3.html)


Defining a group as less capable in some ways than other people when they in fact are not can reasonably seen as systemic discriminatory violence, given that it's difficult if not impossible to define one's self outside of one's language, and this will certainly impact the way one is able to interact in society.

[Lynx]

A trend requires statistical evidence, just as "males are, on average, physically stronger than females" requires evidence.
Facts, half-truths and lies can be used (in a proper or improper manner) to promote discriminatory practices or attitudes. Political correctness would have us suppress certain statements, even those which are factual.

[Module]

If one says, "there is a trend for women to be physically weaker than men" most here would consider that to be discriminatory.

If one says, "there is a trend for blacks to be poorer than whites in the United States," it may or may not be considered discriminatory here. However, I think the description of such a trend, far from being implicitly racist, is one of the most useful means of proving that racism is still widespread in American culture.I don't consider either of those statements to be 'discriminatory', I consider them both to be true. It becomes discriminatory when you make statements that imply an inherent difference in value between two social groups, for example 'there is a trend for women to be physically weaker than men, therefore men deserve social authority over women', or 'there is a trend for blacks to be poorer than whites, therefore black people's work must be worth less' or something like that.
It becomes 'discriminatory' when you use the existence of trends to justify or maintain power structures.
The fact that men are stronger than women only becomes discriminatory when you consider physical strength to be something which implies greater value. People only seem to have a problem with that statement of fact because in most cultures masculinity is considered something inherently 'good', including physical strength. Nobody ever suggests that the statement that 'women are able to lactate whereas men are not' is discriminatory, because exclusively female characteristics are not considered objectively 'valuable'. I'm not at all ashamed to say that as a female I'm not physically tough, in fact I am a fairly weedy example of my gender. I don't care because I don't see physical strength as something to be proud of; my contributions to society don't rest on my level of physical strength.
Similarly, black people tending to be poorer than whites is not discriminatory because we don't suggest that is the result of black people not working as hard, or not performing as well, not being as intelligent, or anything like that. It doesn't suggest any difference in value between black people, as black people, and white people.

[JimmyJazz]

If one says, "there is a trend for blacks to be poorer than whites in the United States," it may or may not be considered discriminatory here. However, I think the description of such a trend, far from being implicitly racist, is one of the most useful means of proving that racism is still widespread in American culture.

Of course this is not discriminatory, it is progressive to point out inequalities.

Discrimination includes any attempt to naturalize inequality, i.e. to make inequality seem inevitable instead of social. So, for example, proposing that people born with a certain amount of skin pigmentation, or a certain set of reproductive organs, have different intelligence or are in some other way less than fully human.

[counterblast]

Of course this is not discriminatory, it is progressive to point out inequalities.

Discrimination includes any attempt to naturalize inequality, i.e. to make inequality seem inevitable instead of social.

I think this is an absolutely wonderful way to put it.

The difference between the right and left; is that the right perceive such statistics as some inevitable, universal truth (women are weak, people of color are unintelligent, ect) while the left takes these statistics a step further to understand why these statistics exist (ie: what conditions exist to make women less likely to develop muscles?, what conditions exist to make people of color more likely to have lower test scores?, what standards were used to decide these statistics in the first place?, ect) .

[Psy]

Men tend to be physically stronger than women. This is true. What do you mean that people consider it to be discriminatory?

Devrim
Not anymore, the growth of non-physical jobs has created weak men and more women doing physical has created strong women. Most women working at industrial jobs can beat any man working in a office to a bloody pulp with ease.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The point is that men, on average, tend to be stronger. After the maximum amount of physical training and steroids that are physically possible for a person to use, the average man at full strength potential would be stronger than the average women under a similar regiment.

The physical skill and efficiency a man has over a women is incredibly irrelevant on modern times. In war, you take what you can get. In industry, machines lift things. Even if men are stronger and that's important, it doesn't justify inequality. That's the main point.

If someone says you're discriminatory for the OP statements, point out that their a moron. That's not discriminatory either. It's a factual statement. I made fun of Native Canadian's ancestral belief in animal spirits. Someone called me a racist. I said I was just stating a fact that their belief is stupid. Your religion is stupid, too.

It really pisses me off sometimes when communists suggest inequalities don't exist. They do. The point is that they don't justify superior treatment.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not anymore, the growth of non-physical jobs has created weak men and more women doing physical has created strong women. Most women working at industrial jobs can beat any man working in a office to a bloody pulp with ease.

The growth of non-physical jobs comes at the cost of the physical ones, meaning women don't get to work in them any more than men do.

Where physical jobs are still commonplace, you get plenty of men doing them.

Also, if I remember correctly, even in the absence of demanding physical labour men still build and retain muscle more easily than women, who tend to put on fat more easily.

Of course, this is not to say that women cannot be physically stronger than men - Jill Mills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Mills) would easily beat my skinny ass any day of the week.

[Psy]

The growth of non-physical jobs comes at the cost of the physical ones, meaning women don't get to work in them any more than men do.

Where physical jobs are still commonplace, you get plenty of men doing them.

Except physical jobs men don't tend to apply for like nurses that get strong moving patients.



Also, if I remember correctly, even in the absence of demanding physical labour men still build and retain muscle more easily than women, who tend to put on fat more easily.

Of course, this is not to say that women cannot be physically stronger than men - Jill Mills (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Mills) would easily beat my skinny ass any day of the week.
Yet it is still more on a issue of physical activity and the individual


The point is that men, on average, tend to be stronger. After the maximum amount of physical training and steroids that are physically possible for a person to use, the average man at full strength potential would be stronger than the average women under a similar regiment.

The physical skill and efficiency a man has over a women is incredibly irrelevant on modern times. In war, you take what you can get. In industry, machines lift things. Even if men are stronger and that's important, it doesn't justify inequality. That's the main point.


I don't think men on average is that significantly more stronger, women can get strong enough for even the most physically demanding industrial jobs.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Yep. Women can get strong enough. However, if two body builders are in the forest and a tree falls on one of the, who can lift it? The women might lift 500 pounds, maximum. The man might lift 700.

The maximum capacity of male strength is higher. It just rarely has any relevance to tasks, and it certainly doesn't justify inequality.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

"there is a trend for women to be physically weaker than men"...is not discriminatory. Subjugating an individual to a statistic, however, would be.

[Psy]

Yep. Women can get strong enough. However, if two body builders are in the forest and a tree falls on one of the, who can lift it? The women might lift 500 pounds, maximum. The man might lift 700.

The maximum capacity of male strength is higher. It just rarely has any relevance to tasks, and it certainly doesn't justify inequality.
And that is the point, muscle endurance is far more importance then peak strength in industrial societies. We can see this with Frederick Taylor's time study on carrying pig iron and his annalists that it is far more productive to have workers that carry less pig iron at a time yet carry pig iron longer before getting exhausted then a worker that can carry lots of pig iron in one go but becomes tired much faster. Same with the military, no military cares about peak strength, they want to know how far one can march with a full pack before becoming exhausted thus why modern basic military training is focused on endurance and not strength.

[Devrim]

Not anymore, the growth of non-physical jobs has created weak men and more women doing physical has created strong women. Most women working at industrial jobs can beat any man working in a office to a bloody pulp with ease.

But that is not what the statement said. It is saying that 'men tend to be stronger than women'. If we take somebody like Jang Mi-Ran, top female weightlifter, and world record breaker in the last Olympics, she would be stronger than the vast majority of men in the world. She wouldn't be able to compete with Andrei Aramnauwho lifted over 50kg more.

It is not about woman working in manual jobs and men working in offices. It is about the general spread.

Devrim

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

And that is the point, muscle endurance is far more importance then peak strength in industrial societies. We can see this with Frederick Taylor's time study on carrying pig iron and his annalists that it is far more productive to have workers that carry less pig iron at a time yet carry pig iron longer before getting exhausted then a worker that can carry lots of pig iron in one go but becomes tired much faster. Same with the military, no military cares about peak strength, they want to know how far one can march with a full pack before becoming exhausted thus why modern basic military training is focused on endurance and not strength.

Men do better at peak endurance as well.

[Bitter Ashes]

It's the testosterone thing isnt it?
High testosterone levels make muscle building quicker. It doesnt change anything else, other than that most women have to work a little harder to get the strength in the first place.

[Psy]

It's the testosterone thing isnt it?
High testosterone levels make muscle building quicker. It doesnt change anything else, other than that most women have to work a little harder to get the strength in the first place.

Except we are in the age of using chemical agents to build muscles faster.

[Yazman]

If one says, "there is a trend for women to be physically weaker than men" most here would consider that to be discriminatory.

Thats not discriminatory because it is biological fact. Its called sexual dimorphism and men do tend to be more robust.

[Lynx]

I don't quite get the use of the word 'trend' :(