Jump to content

Discrimmination


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That is the past, and we need to live in the present.

A female hockey player is currently suing because she is not allowed to be in the boy's dressing room. And she has legitimate reasons for her beef. She is not asking to go into the showers with the boys just the dressing room where everyone is appropriately attired. Why do we make such a big issue of nudity in the first place I have no idea. We all have bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other issue is men have historically violated women, and sexually assult women.  The lesson is that women still have primitive fears about a strange man looking at naked self.  Not the other way around. 

I don't see how you can argue that the actions of other people should alter your fundamental rights of eqaulity.

So opening the doors to female entering the men’s locker is not the same as opening the doors for males entry.    The law reminds us about balancing responsibility and rights in sexuality.

I don't see that you've made any compelling argument for that difference.

Plus there is something called dignity of a women.

But not for men, apparently.

Think again if you really believe that all the women prance around in the nude in the ladies.

In my experience, most men don't either. Regardless, I don't see the relavancy of this point.

To breech this private domain is a violation

Unless your male, in which case your private domain comes second to market access?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the past, and we need to live in the present.

A female hockey player is currently suing because she is not allowed to be in the boy's dressing room. And she has legitimate reasons for her beef. She is not asking to go into the showers with the boys just the dressing room where everyone is appropriately attired. Why do we make such a big issue of nudity in the first place I have no idea. We all have bodies.

why do we discriminate in washrooms? public bathrooms should be unisex. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it not then be more sensible to just ban both male and female reporters from the locker room?

Ask the business men who conduct business on the golf course why not the office, or the strip club as they did previously

Ask our new lawyer friend why women are allowed in the derobing closet

You want a deal, want to network, want a story, well, welcome to contemporary ways of making things happen

By your argument the man who is intiminated in this case does not deserve the same protection accorded women in similar circumstance?

Well I am going by the link you posted and I get the picture. Men want to intimidate women as far as I gathered, some reporters mentioned the players waited for the lady reporter and drop their safely guarded towels. This is from the link you provided:

Christina Bergstrom mentions Joanne Ireland, writer for The Edmonton Journal, discussing how players refuse to wear towels even knowing she is present and

Linda Stasi tells of how the entire Mets team removed their towels for her on cue and mentions the awkwardness of sitting while watching a room full of "perfectly naked perfect men" standing all around her.

I'll buy though that some men might be uncomfortable with a female present and the clubs should provide this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do we discriminate in washrooms? public bathrooms should be unisex.

And that is already happening.

Our society is evolving mainly in a healthy way.

Do you remember hearing about the shows "Fathers Knows Best"? Or "The Honeymooners"? Or "Archie Bunker"? Do you think those shows would be acceptable on TV these days? Of course not. Times have changed. Remember when smoking was acceptable? Remember when Bush was credible? (that's a joke, as he never was).

Well it is the same for the locker room. Women are accepted in mens' locker rooms now. It is not the same for men because men are too ignorant when it comes to sexuality or nudity, generally speaking. Let's face it, most men are stupid!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask the business men who conduct business on the golf course why not the office, or the strip club as they did previously

Ask our new lawyer friend why women are allowed in the derobing closet

You want a deal, want to network, want a story, well, welcome to contemporary ways of making things happen

Sorry, I don't see how this response at all addresses the question asked.

I'll buy though that some men might be uncomfortable with a female present and the clubs should provide this

If you understand that some men might be uncomfortable, and you are suggesting that clubs provide for this, why not be consistant and advocate that male reporters be allowed into female athlete locker rooms and have the clubs provide for that case as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, discrimmination, even when it done favourble to a minority group is wrong and should not be permitted. The fact that we enshrine it in our charter is just an indictment of our own hypocrisy.

well all those prohibited grounds for discrimination tells the story that groups are not accessing services and nor buying services in fact Canadians might as well be replishing constantly a dried out social system and increasing taxes for LINK, ESL, international professional program, health care

Look at it this way, in Toronto there are 55% immigrants

Toronto sits as a financial trading centre of Canada.

Here is whats happening all of minority folks will say to you that they have experience discrimination in a recent past. Its not about LINK or a professional designation, its about systemic discrimination.

These minorities wind up with survival jobs. And we are hoping and relying that these new people will uphold the Toronto economy.

For the financial district, well, companies decide bigger is better, so merging with each other and getting bigger, this drives a small company out of business - and with no competition big companies set ridiculous price see: Eaton, Bay, Roots, A&P, Jets go

A year later those big companies are folding. Well did I allude to Canada losing its identity to immigration.

But get it the minorities are discriminated against and fall into proverty with no income to buy your goods and services and usless there is programs like AA you might as well be myopic.

In a macro view its not about being favorable to minority groups but using their talents to the full potential to make the economy viable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Handouts are disgusting in that they perpetuate the thought that minorities are unable to make it on their own.

I agree. My husband is a visible minority, and it has always offended him that people would expect him to use that as leverage. He can compete with anyone on his own merits, regardless of the colour of his skin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Handouts are disgusting in that they perpetuate the thought that minorities are unable to make it on their own.

Too often, honest attempts at leveling the playing field are dismissed as "handouts."

Some minorities don't feel the playing field needs to be 'levelled', they just want to be afforded the same opportunities and nothing extra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it always the poor that say they don't need to share their wealth with the poor?

Why is always the majority that says they don't need to make allowances for the minorities?

This is why we need a strong national government to be our Robin Hood. To protect the poor, the less privileged, the minorities, from the fat cats, the rich, the powerful, and the greedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it always the poor that say they don't need to share their wealth with the poor?

Why is always the majority that says they don't need to make allowances for the minorities?

This is why we need a strong national government to be our Robin Hood. To protect the poor, the less privileged, the minorities, from the fat cats, the rich, the powerful, and the greedy.

It's a ridiculous idea to punish the sucessful in order to make the lazy more comfortable. And for the majority to change their way of life and values to make a few people happy is a ridiculous idea as well. Democracy is about majority rule. Fit in, or change it yourself, no excuses.

If you refuse to be part of our society, don't get angry when we then don't accept you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a ridiculous idea to punish the sucessful in order to make the lazy more comfortable. And for the majority to change their way of life and values to make a few people happy is a ridiculous idea as well. Democracy is about majority rule. Fit in, or change it yourself, no excuses.

If you refuse to be part of our society, don't get angry when we then don't accept you.

I wasn't talking about lazy people, I was talking about less privileged people, like the physically challenged, the intellectually challenged.

Some people through no fault of their own are minorities. For example skin colour. It is up to the majority to accept and treat these people vwith respect and dignity and to not deprive them of their rightful place in society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone here seems to agree that discrimmination exists and is instutionalized in law. Some seem to think that this discrimmination is justified because of historial inequities suffered by a particular group. We can call this discrimmination "leveling the playing field" or "affirmative action" however these don't change the fact that it is discrimmination.

Any kind of favouritism toward one group, is by nature discrimmination toward another. Despite what generalizations are made about previous history, when discrimmination is tolerated, individuals will unfairly suffer.

You would think that those who belong to groups which have been discrimminated against, assuming they were not hipocrites, would be the first to cry foul when a discrimminatory program is created, despite the favourable treatement they would receive. Alas, self-interest trumps any sense that we should have a consistent policy against discrimmination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my view, discrimmination, even when it done favourble to a minority group is wrong and should not be permitted. The fact that we enshrine it in our charter is just an indictment of our own hypocrisy.

well all those prohibited grounds for discrimination tells the story that groups are not accessing services and nor buying services in fact Canadians might as well be replishing constantly a dried out social system and increasing taxes for LINK, ESL, international professional program, health care

Look at it this way, in Toronto there are 55% immigrants

Toronto sits as a financial trading centre of Canada.

Here is whats happening all of minority folks will say to you that they have experience discrimination in a recent past. Its not about LINK or a professional designation, its about systemic discrimination.

These minorities wind up with survival jobs. And we are hoping and relying that these new people will uphold the Toronto economy.

For the financial district, well, companies decide bigger is better, so merging with each other and getting bigger, this drives a small company out of business - and with no competition big companies set ridiculous price see: Eaton, Bay, Roots, A&P, Jets go

A year later those big companies are folding. Well did I allude to Canada losing its identity to immigration.

But get it the minorities are discriminated against and fall into proverty with no income to buy your goods and services and usless there is programs like AA you might as well be myopic.

In a macro view its not about being favorable to minority groups but using their talents to the full potential to make the economy viable

RB, maybe it's just me by I have no clue what you are saying. I know plenty of minority individuals who start from nothing and have become by any standard very successful. They didn't use discrimminatory programs to do it, they used their own hard work, self-reliance, and willingness to take risks. They also didn't do it out of a sense of benevolence. They did it for their own self-interest. Our capitalist system works very well. In Toronto you will find all races and minorities represented in virtually evey facet of society. Government attempts to intefere with the promotion of discrimminatory programs is short-sighted, and in the long run will simply cause resentment between groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it always the poor that say they don't need to share their wealth with the poor?

Why is always the majority that says they don't need to make allowances for the minorities?

This is why we need a strong national government to be our Robin Hood. To protect the poor, the less privileged, the minorities, from the fat cats, the rich, the powerful, and the greedy.

Don't forget that Robin Hood was a thief and he stole. I suppose that is no different that a govenment who steals our hard-earned income by force. Unlike you, I feel each of the money is our own, and we should be free to do with it what we want without govenment involvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think there is a difference between the former president of World Com who took us for that multi billion dollar fraud and the woman who steals some food in a grocery store to feed her family? Maybe you don't but I do, and if I were the judge in both these situations I would through away the key for the white collar fraud, but I would not sentence the woman to jail time. You would probably call that discrimmination, but I call it judgement. I am not condoning the woman's behaviour, however there are mitigating circumstances in her situation, and she needs help. The white collar crook needs punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Democracy is about a lot more than majority rule. And, it is not punishment to require the wealthy or fortunate to share some of their good luck (it is not hard work that is the difference) with the less fortunate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not punishment? What it is, is force. You want the government to force everyone to pay for what you think is right. It's like George W Bush taking away people's liberrty with fear, except you try to guilt people. Different ideals forced onto the public very idealastic people. I know you will see it different the same way Republicans see it different. But like I said it is Force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada is a social democratic country and as such we have societial norms. One of them is that our governments are there to protect the weak ffrom the too powerful. Look at it this way: government intervention to redistribute the wealth is like a teacher stopping the school yard bully who is beating up on little kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest eureka

Just as important is that government is to protect the powerful from the weak. Without that, the weak, the great majority of people, will be forced to use "Force" to obtain their fair share of the benefits of organised society.

It has happened often enough in the past.

By the way, that idea of government coercion is just too beginnerish for words. This is a modern society in which the social contract and consensus is reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...