2138 réponses à ce sujet

[phantomrachie]

I was just providing one example of how straight and gay couples are different. Unless there is something that prevents either partner of the straight couple from having children, they can. Meanwhile the gay couple can only have one of the partners be the parent of any future children.

 

 

I realize that, I was simply musing on the point you raised and why people consider that the ability to have or not have children makes a couple different from any other.

 

I mean we could list the differences between couples forever, there are goth couples, metal head couples, couples who cos play, couples who swing, couples who have an open relationship etc.

 

Generally people don't say that these couples are any less of a couple than any other so I find it odd that children are considered to be one of the few things that typifies couplehood, even though many couples don't have or can't have any.

 

I also find it odd that biological kids are the holy grail for people who make this argument (not saying who are) but that brings up an off topic debate on reproductive rights so I'll leave it at that.

 

Edit: some additional comments that, I felt suited this post better than making a new one

[tirnoney]

 

Oh and that reminds me:  Bi/pansexual folks can have monogamous relationships just like straight and gay people can.  I'm sure that the LGBT community knows this, but it is worth mentioning to some of the more confused folks in general.  I didn't suddenly become straight when I married my husband.  My friend didn't become straight when he married his wife either.  Nor does a pan/bisexual person being with someone in a homosexual relationship make them gay.  

 

 

Happened to me recently.  I was at a dinner party with acquaintances and made some comment about Colin Firth's bum.  One man awkwardly stuttered 'but what about P (my wife)?'  I told him that I'd been hoping for years that being in a relationship with another woman would turn me into a lesbian, but it wasn't working.  The look on his face was glorious*.

 

*Never fear, I still did my civic duty by explaining to him the concept of bisexuality.

[Grieving Natashina]

I realize that, I was simply musing on the point you raised and why people consider that the ability to have or not have children makes a couple different from any other.

I'm not stepping into this debate, but I'm curious as well.  My husband and I don't have children, nor do we ever plan on doing so, so I'd like to hear where Kallen is coming from.

 

_{<hugs to Kallen>  Good to see you around the BSN hun.}

 

 

 

Happened to me recently.  I was at a dinner party with acquaintances and made some comment about Colin Firth's bum.  One man awkwardly stuttered 'but what about P (my wife)?'  I told him that I'd been hoping for years that being in a relationship with another woman would turn me into a lesbian, but it wasn't working.  The look on his face was glorious*.

 

*Never fear, I still did my civic duty by explaining to him the concept of bisexuality.

I wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that!  You get a like for the hot coffee that damned near came out of my nose.

[Ravensword]

Well, I am not. I am merely answering a question with an equally valid question.

It is a valid question; one you'll get the opportunity to ask once you've given an answer to the other person's question.

[tirnoney]

 

The employers told him straight up every time he applied that the reason they couldn't hire him was because of Equal Opportunities, so yes I'd say I have proof. 

 

Are you sure you're not using a single incident to justify your position on a much wider social justice problem?  Maybe they used the EO card because it was easier than telling him a.n. other reason for why they didn't want to hire him?  

 

I'm not making a judgement about your father because I don't know the details and I don't know how EO law works where you live.  However, I've encountered lots of people with their one anecdote that they use to justify a position that would entrench an already unequal system.

 

If your father couldn't get a job because of the colour of his skin then bear in mind it's still much more likely to happen the other way around by several orders of magnitude in most parts of the world.

[9TailsFox]

Are you sure you're not using a single incident to justify your position on a much wider social justice problem?  Maybe they used the EO card because it was easier than telling him a.n. other reason for why they didn't want to hire him?  

 

I'm not making a judgement about your father because I don't know the details and I don't know how EO law works where you live.  However, I've encountered lots of people with their one anecdote that they use to justify a position that would entrench an already unequal system.

 

If your father couldn't get a job because of the colour of his skin then bear in mind it's still much more likely to happen the other way around by several orders of magnitude in most parts of the world.

You right, now his father should feel much better because of this.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

Are you sure you're not using a single incident to justify your position on a much wider social justice problem?  Maybe they used the EO card because it was easier than telling him a.n. other reason for why they didn't want to hire him?  

 

I'm not making a judgement about your father because I don't know the details and I don't know how EO law works where you live.  However, I've encountered lots of people with their one anecdote that they use to justify a position that would entrench an already unequal system.

 

If your father couldn't get a job because of the colour of his skin then bear in mind it's still much more likely to happen the other way around by several orders of magnitude in most parts of the world.

the system isn't unequal. people are just dim. education is fine but forcing changes on the system itself, formalizing equality in laws is just absurd - you have to hire at least 20% gays or else you'll pay fine. not to mention it's descriminating the rest (yeah, we could use you but you're too normal, we have to meet the quota, you know? we could fire someone from QA but we would have to find a homosexual to replace that person, nah man, better luck next time).

if someone is homophobic - that's his business, as much as being transgender is yours. it might mean he/she is a dick but then again maybe just a person who deeply believes in procreation for some reason. you cannot deny him his beliefs, that's religious persecution!

 

masses don't care about marches, they just annoy them (well, they annoy me - what i do in my bedroom is my business only, i don't want to know what others do either). but if someone watches a movie, plays a game in which love comes in various shapes and sizes, maybe he'll think twice before throwing a cruel comment.

 

same goes for every other minority (skin/hair colour, gender, shoes). now, i don't care if a person is alien with transparent skin or likes to eat dirt, i'm all for equality. but making some people more privilaged because they are not normal pisses me off. as in formilizing it, cuz i don't think there ever were laws prohibiting employers from hiring gays/transexuals/gingers, if there are/were - the only action taken should be rewriting them so they wouldn't.

[RevilFox]

If you are the type of person who is again Equal Opportunity laws requiring businesses to hire a set number of minority employees, are you more okay with the NFL's "Rooney Rule"? If you're not familiar, the rule states that no team  is allowed to hire a new head coach until they've also interviewed a minority for the position. (The rule might specifically apply to black applicants, I'm not 100% sure). They are not required to hire them, but they MUST interview at least one.

 

Is this better, worse, or no different to you?

[SardaukarElite]

Well this tangent can only end well.

[tirnoney]

 

 

same goes for every other minority (skin/hair colour, gender, shoes). now, i don't care if a person is alien with transparent skin or likes to eat dirt, i'm all for equality. but making some people more privilaged because they are not normal pisses me off. as in formilizing it, cuz i don't think there ever were laws prohibiting employers from hiring gays/transexuals/gingers, if there are/were - the only action taken should be rewriting them so they wouldn't.

 

I'm not advocating rigid positive discrimination for minorities, just trying to point out that the issue isn't as simple as making discrimination illegal.  In the UK it has been illegal to discriminate against women in employment for many years and yet they are still paid less on average for doing the same job as men and are woefully under-represented in positions of authority.  Sometimes creative thinking is required.  It doesn't have to be positive discrimination though, there are many other ways to do it.  But making it illegal isn't enough.

[tirnoney]

You right, now his father should feel much better because of this.

It's possible to both feel sympathy for his father and at the same time acknowledge that his experience is not representative of society at large.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

If you are the type of person who is again Equal Opportunity laws requiring businesses to hire a set number of minority employees, are you more okay with the NFL's "Rooney Rule"? If you're not familiar, the rule states that no team  is allowed to hire a new head coach until they've also interviewed a minority for the position. (The rule might specifically apply to black applicants, I'm not 100% sure). They are not required to hire them, but they MUST interview at least one.

 

Is this better, worse, or no different to you?

if you're asking me - i think it's exactly the same. if they don't interview a minority - maybe that's because there were no minority applicants? if there were - problem lies not in the system but in people who cannot see the common good (in this case - the best coach avaiable is still the best coach, no matter the colour) behind their ridiculous prejudices. system shouldn't even try to fix people

 

I'm not advocating rigid positive discrimination for minorities, just trying to point out that the issue isn't as simple as making discrimination illegal.  In the UK it has been illegal to discriminate against women in employment for many years and yet they are still paid less on average for doing the same job as men and are woefully under-represented in positions of authority.  Sometimes creative thinking is required.  It doesn't have to be positive discrimination though, there are many other ways to do it.  But making it illegal isn't enough.

these are changes that shouldn't be rushed. to tell the truth, again: don't think that's the problem of the system. if a person doesn't want to hold position of authority, there is no reason to force her. i'm not sociologist, but majority of women i know aren't even interested in career - they want to be a mother and take care of the family, job is secondary thing in their lives. don't get me wrong - i don't think all women want to stay in the kitchen, but actually making them believe that it's ok to do something else than that is a process. and changing something like that cannot be fixed by a change in the system.

about the money issue - i cannot address that because i have no data other than mine (as a woman my income isn't by any means lower than my male colleagues and if it is - it's because my experience is relatively low, i'm the only woman in my departament but since i've started working in this company, there weren't any female applicants for similar position)

[Grieving Natashina]

Well this tangent can only end well.

Indeed.  When someone says that "People who are homophobics, well that's just their business," without realizing the damage that homophobia does to our society (and also ignoring that straight couples can talk about their relationships without feeling ostracized,) I know I'm dealing with a person that probably doesn't understand the greater issue at all.  I also take it as a sign that I need to back out of a thread until the subject changes.  

 

Back to ME1 for me.  I can't wait to chat with my dad about it this weekend, since I talked him into getting the trilogy.  

 

Edit: Also, these changes shouldn't be rushed?  Are you kidding me?  The LGBT movement started in 1969.  It's now 2014.  You're honestly telling me that 45 years is "rushing things?!?"

 

Video games themselves have been around for home consoles since about 1980.  34 years is too soon for video games to really change?!?  You might want to stop, and reevaluate some of your posts.

 

Now I'm off to kill a lot of geth.  

[Bugsie]

Its not trash talking, Oghren confronts Anders about staring at him. Then talk about skirts and other things are mentioned. Try listening to their words a bit more.  Oghren brushed Anders off a bit, more than once. Oghren seems to know Anders is into men if you pay attention to the banter.
 
I play only females thru awakening and not tried a male yet.

I played through Awakenings for the first time only last month. I got a cheap deal on steam for DA:O with the DLC too, I had previously played It only on Xbox without the DlC. Anyway, I ran a male elf Warrior who romanced Zevran (I tried to romance Morrigan but I only got so far before switching - something for another thread perhaps!) I took him into Awakenings and yeah - the subtext of their banter - I picked up on as well. Ohgrens responses were generally pretty vile towards Anders (and others too hence why I dislike him so much)

[tirnoney]

, there weren't any female applicants for similar position)

Ask yourself why?  And don't just stop at the first answer that pops into your head.

 

The percentage of female physics and engineering graduates is very low.  Why is that?  Is it because girls can't do physics?  Is it because girls don't want to do physics?  We know from all-girl schools that given genuinely equal opportunity that a much higher percentage of them study science and maths.  So it can't be either of those reasons.  There must be something stopping women who might make excellent engineers from choosing it.  

 

I'm not telling you or anyone else what to think.  I'm just suggesting you look beyond the obvious.

 

And that is all I'm going to say on the subject.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

Indeed.  When someone says that "People who are homophobics, well that's just their business," without realizing the damage that homophobia does to our society (and also ignoring that straight couples can talk about their relationships without feeling ostracized,) I know I'm dealing with a person that probably doesn't understand the greater issue at all.  I also take it as a sign that I need to back out of a thread until the subject changes.  

 

Back to ME1 for me.  I can't wait to chat with my dad about it this weekend, since I talked him into getting the trilogy.  

 

Edit: Also, these changes shouldn't be rushed?  Are you kidding me?  The LGBT movement started in 1969.  It's now 2014.  You're honestly telling me that 45 years is "rushing things?!?"

 

Video games themselves have been around for home consoles since 1980.  34 years is too soon for video games to really change?!?  You might want to stop, and reevaluate some of your posts.

 

Now I'm off to kill a lot of geth.  

have you actually read what i wrote or just picked the fragments you find offensive and replied to those?

 

art (video games, wink) should be the media that changes people perception (and i actually wrote that), because it's something people are exposed to. and that form is not invasive, it doesn't make people deffensive and angry.

 

45 years is too little to change people's mentality. have you ever tried to talk freely about sex with your grandmother? well i didn't and i think talking with my mother would be an issue, even if she's a bit more open minded.

come to think of it, i don't talk about it with my boss or friends either. maybe i'm just weird

 

no, i don't realise what homophobia does to our society. then again maybe i just have more tolerant society or maybe i just tolerate other people right to not tolerate? hmmm... i guess i'm either lucky or naive.

[Innsmouth Dweller]

Ask yourself why?  And don't just stop at the first answer that pops into your head.

 

The percentage of female physics and engineering graduates is very low.  Why is that?  Is it because girls can't do physics?  Is it because girls don't want to do physics?  We know from all-girl schools that given genuinely equal opportunity that a much higher percentage of them study science and maths.  So it can't be either of those reasons.  There must be something stopping women who might make excellent engineers from choosing it.  

 

I'm not telling you or anyone else what to think.  I'm just suggesting you look beyond the obvious.

 

And that is all I'm going to say on the subject.

girls can do physics. and some of them want to do physics. but funny thing is - on my senior year there were 3 girls (including myself), most of those girls who applied, failed exams earlier (6 of them, or so. cuz... yeah, they couldn't do physics). those 3 girls graduated and have jobs in their field of study.

you're asking me why women do not want to learn maths? how should i know? i do

 

EDIT: i remember technical/engineering class in the elementary. teacher said there will be two types of classes, the group will be devided: knitting and construction. he didn't say all girls should do the knitting and boys construction. most of girls decided to go to the knitting class anyway, only few chose the other one. why? i have no idea, but it tells something - maybe the girls baked cakes with mothers in home instead of helping daddy fix his car?

 

why men don't like to study language arts (or maybe they do, all i know there is 2 in my friend's class - as i've said i'm not a sociologist)?

[phantomrachie]

no, i don't realise what homophobia does to our society. then again maybe i just have more tolerant society or maybe i just tolerate other people right to not tolerate? hmmm... i guess i'm either lucky or naive.

 

I really did try to stay out of this but then I saw this quote. Tolerate peoples right not to tolerate?  No

 

Would you tolerate a persons 'right' to be sexists or racist?  I wouldn't because tolerating a person's or groups discriminatory behavior is toxic to our society  

 

People may have 'freedom of speech' but that doesn't mean that they are free from the consequences of that speech. 

 

It is my belief  that we should call out, sexism, racism, homophobia,etc where were we see/hear/experience it, people need to know that it is not okay to discriminate.

 

If we tolerate discriminatory behaviors then people will continue to think that it is ok and there will never be equality. 

[daveliam]

Yikes with this most recent conversation topic.........

 

About the EOA, I'll just say this:  This law exists for a very important reason and to claim that it is somehow unfair is viewing the situation completely acontextually. 

 

Now can we please go back to talking about the "gay propositions"?

 

For example, do we think that Iron Bull and Josephine's romances are going to be different depending on gender?  In DA2, the differences between a male and female romance were pretty minimal and it seems like, in general, people weren't happy with this. 

[Innsmouth Dweller]

I really did try to stay out of this but then I saw this quote. Tolerate peoples right not to tolerate?  No

 

Would you tolerate a persons 'right' to be sexists or racist?  I wouldn't because tolerating a person's or groups discriminatory behavior is toxic to our society  

 

People may have 'freedom of speech' but that doesn't mean that they are free from the consequences of that speech. 

 

It is my belief  that we should call out, sexism, racism, homophobia, where were we see/hear/experience it, people need to know that it is not okay to discriminate.

 

If we tolerate discriminatory behaviors then people will continue to think that it is ok and there will never be equality. 

hm.. you know? you're right, i used the wrong word. i should've said 'i tolerate other people right to not accept'. tolerate means you're allowing something to happen even if you don't agree with it. accept means you're in favour of it.

 

lack of acceptance doesn't implicate discriminational behaviour. it's a personal opinion. but such opinion should never determine your actions towards others.

[tirnoney]

 

For example, do we think that Iron Bull and Josephine's romances are going to be different depending on gender?  In DA2, the differences between a male and female romance were pretty minimal and it seems like, in general, people weren't happy with this. 

 

I hope they will be different.  It adds realism and also a reason to replay for a different experience with a different gendered PC for those who wish to do that.  Generic dialogue tends to stick out like a sore thumb, for me anyway.

[phantomrachie]

Now can we please go back to talking about the "gay propositions"?

 

For example, do we think that Iron Bull and Josephine's romances are going to be different depending on gender?  In DA2, the differences between a male and female romance were pretty minimal and it seems like, in general, people weren't happy with this. 

 

If there are differences I'd prefer if those differences are in how the Inquisitor interacts with them rather than how they interact with the Inquisitor.

 

For example - both Male and Female Inquisitors have to give Josephine some flowers as a present but they get different things to say to Josephine  when they present them. Josephine however reacts in pretty much the same way.

 

If it were Josephine that reacted then, her reaction might conflict with the personality of your Inquisitor, for example, if she expressed shock that a man knew what flowers she liked, that could be contradictory to your human noble who was educated in what gifts to give women so it would be easier for him to get a wife.

 

(stupid example I know, but I hope you get what I mean)

 

Personally I liked that the romances were the same in DA2, it meant that BioWare didn't stumble into using stereotypical roles of people in a relationship and that we never got a DA version of the weird shower scene between Sam and Shepard in ME3

[DaySeeker]

I'm wondering, since the brief description of Iron Bull states that he will jump into bed with anyone if it will be a romance or a series of sexual encounters ala Jack in ME2.  Not sure which I would want more.  I think I'm pretty on board the Dorian train to Lovetown. Of course I may see Iron Bull on that train, so, um, crowded train.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Putting EO-related replies in spoiler tags so only those who want to read them can.

Spoiler

That doesn't really work for a yes or no question.

It is a valid question; one you'll get the opportunity to ask once you've given an answer to the other person's question.

Very well. Then to answer the question:

If they are not objectively better, it is okay to not hire a transgender. 

If they are not objectively better, it is not okay to not hire a transgender because they are transgender. 

 

 

I realize that, I was simply musing on the point you raised and why people consider that the ability to have or not have children makes a couple different from any other.

 

I mean we could list the differences between couples forever, there are goth couples, metal head couples, couples who cos play, couples who swing, couples who have an open relationship etc.

 

Generally people don't say that these couples are any less of a couple than any other so I find it odd that children are considered to be one of the few things that typifies couplehood, even though many couples don't have or can't have any.

 

I also find it odd that biological kids are the holy grail for people who make this argument (not saying who are) but that brings up an off topic debate on reproductive rights so I'll leave it at that.

 

Edit: some additional comments that, I felt suited this post better than making a new one

 

I'm not stepping into this debate, but I'm curious as well.  My husband and I don't have children, nor do we ever plan on doing so, so I'd like to hear where Kallen is coming from.

 

_{<hugs to Kallen>  Good to see you around the BSN hun.}

Someone said they were not the same, someone else asked why, so I chimed in with a biological reason why people can say that the two couples are different. That's all. No other intentions beyond that. 

<returns hug to Natashina>

 

 

Are you sure you're not using a single incident to justify your position on a much wider social justice problem?  Maybe they used the EO card because it was easier than telling him a.n. other reason for why they didn't want to hire him?  

 

I'm not making a judgement about your father because I don't know the details and I don't know how EO law works where you live.  However, I've encountered lots of people with their one anecdote that they use to justify a position that would entrench an already unequal system.

 

If your father couldn't get a job because of the colour of his skin then bear in mind it's still much more likely to happen the other way around by several orders of magnitude in most parts of the world.

What position is that? That I personally do not like the Equal Employment Opportunity Act? 

As an idea, I approve of the concept of creating some means of ensuring some sort of job security for women, minorities, LGBT, etc. However one can agree with an idea but not with the practice that idea uses to fulfill itself, especially when it is just replacing discrimination of one group with that of another. And that is exactly what the "Equal" Employment Opportunity Act does. 

 

 

Now can we please go back to talking about the "gay propositions"?

 

For example, do we think that Iron Bull and Josephine's romances are going to be different depending on gender?  In DA2, the differences between a male and female romance were pretty minimal and it seems like, in general, people weren't happy with this. 

I'm sure they will be slightly different. Both in DAO and DA2 they were, so no real reason to think otherwise.

I'd say DA2 was more different than DAO in regards to recognizing your character's gender. 

[Puppy Love]

Edited to try making a spoiler

 

Spoiler

No it is not ok to not hire someone because they are straight or white.

 

HOWEVER, saying that, when you have to make a choice between two equal people, all that's left is, the people themselves as a deciding factor.

 

We're not talking about someone protected by "Equal Opportunity" so your hang up on that is irrelevant in this case.  There is no law forcing them to hire the transgender person.  Simply put, they can look up, be uncomfortable and say no.  Considering being transgender creates that reaction almost everywhere, because simply put, employers don't want to deal with that in their work place.  It can potentially create issues with not only them, but other workers being uncomfortable.  There's no reason for them to hire the transgender person, it's an annoying hassle.  So when I say hiring the transgender person is the right and good choice in that scenario, it's because it is, because chances are, no one is going to hire them because they don't have to, and because there is no incentive for them to buck the norm.  It's potential an HR nightmare, they can avoid by simply saying no.

 

I'm not talking about a, not hiring the straight white over the transgender because of some forced "Equal Opportunity" law.  I'm talking about taking an active effort to make a difference, despite it being more convenient to do like everyone else and just tell the Transgender to go away.

 

See the issue is that when a Transgender applies for a job, and the straight white guy applies for a job and both are equally skilled, without any protection there is no incentive to hire the transgender, none what so ever.  In fact even if the Transgender is more qualified, the issues that come with hiring a transgender person is quite likely enough that they will say no anyway to avoid such issues.

 

This creates a situation where it's damn near impossible to get hired as transgendered in any job.  This is why there are so many transgendered prostitutes, and is why I personally find the transgender prostitute so common in tv shows and movies so offensive.  Because those that are, often end up such out of desperation because no one will hire them.

 

Is your father completely unhireable?  Do you feel there's an honest chance he'll have to turn to crime in order to support his family?  Because that is reality for someone Transgendered unless they get lucky or live in a place more progressive towards LGBT rights.

 

Now how do you THINK we should handle this?  As current the only way a Transgender gets justice in these scenarios is long drawn out legal fights we usually lose, putting us in an even worse position, with the occasional victory far rarer than the loses. 

 

See you don't seem to get the difference between your father and the other scenario.  Your father may not have gotten the job he wanted, but he got a job.  If nothing was or never is done to force the issue, it'd be just your father and people like him getting jobs.  A lot of people would be perfectly happy if transgendered starved and died, because we make them feel a little uncomfortable and they don't want that in their work place. 

 

Does the occasional straight white guy get boned by efforts to force the issue?  Yes of course they do.  And that sucks and is wrong, but no where near as wrong as the situation that happens far more often and flagrantly on the other side, for which doing nothing means no progress, ever.

 

Now that being said, after enough time has passed when there is no longer a stigma on hiring a certain group of people, such laws need to be relaxed, and if full acceptance occurs, possibly eliminated completely, or becoming a law that merely defends against not hiring someone based on such issues period including straight white.  But when it is so lopsided that the only way one side is not starving and selling themselves on the street is with help and luck, and the straight white guy is in no danger of not finding a job anywhere, then I admit to having difficulty feeling bad they didn't get their dream job, when the other side is struggling to get any job, dream/hated/or otherwise.