Little bit more me doing stuff but mostly ramblings again
Diary: Week of 31/08: Kays, Industrial Fallout and Sky
I spent Monday bank holiday with Lacuna_Raze, which was fun :o)
Unfortunately, the rest of the midweek wasn't nearly so much fun, with my only reason to even leave the house being a Job Centre appointment :o/ I did have plenty of time to finish reading Dan Abnett's Ravenor omnibus, which was probably the best of his books yet :o)
Industrial Fallout V on the Friday helped perk things up. Was busier than last time (which was announced with less notice than usual), which was good. Nice to see a variety of familar faces at these events, although Lacuna_Raze didn't fancy it, which was a shame. Still, a good night out and it's nice that it's still drawing a crowd even at it's fourth time; should hopefully last.
I got a taxi back to Lacuna_Raze's and stayed there for a change. Since she had just had Sky installed we spent Saturday in eating ice cream and fast food in bed rather than going out anywhere :oP Even though it may not sound the most interesting thing in the world, we're quite good at keeping each other entertained so it was very good all the same :o)
Unfortunately I missed LittleCyberAlex's gaming night on Sunday as my phone died before I got the text message confirming that it was on. :o(
Thoughts: Why not all discrimination is bad
Last week I wrote about the differences between prejudice against marginalised groups and prejudice against privilege groups: linky
I described how a black person who is racist against a white person is just as wrong as a white person who is racist against a black person but how the issues differed in sensitivity due to one being a severe social issue and the other not.
Now I want to describe how discrimination against a marginalised group can be bad whilst the same discrimination against a privileged group can be -good-.
There are tons of examples I could use but I'm going to use a less typical example:
Beauty pageants and contests.
If we take a general beauty pageant, such as the 'Miss America' contest then I think it's entry requirements should be open and inclusive. If Miss America said that it didn't allow black women, gay women, transgendered women (etc) then I Would consider that discriminatory and unfair.
That being said, there are times when it feels appropriate to include restrictions in more minor pageants.
Here are two good reasons that we might do that:
(1) To create a pageant for a group of people who can not compete equally in standard pageants due to a disadvantage.
(2) To create a pageant for a group who is under-represented or not represented at all in standard pageants due to being a statistical minority.
Here are some examples, starting with the banal:
(1) Beauty pageants for women body builders.
Common attitudes towards beauty mean that women body builders can not compete fairly in a standard beauty pageant. They are also a minority group.
For this reason it makes sense to have a separate beauty pageant that only allows body builders.
There is no need to create a new and separate pageant for non-body building women as this type of beauty is already heavily represented in 'Miss America'. There's no need to create one.
(2) Beauty pageants for plus-sized women.
Women who are not 'thin' are not a statistical minority and make up a very significant portion of our society. Still, we live in a sizeist 'thin-is-in' society where larger women are considered 'less attractive'.
For this reason there is an incentive to create a special pageants to explore and celebrate this less commonly appreciated type of beauty.
Further, in doing so we find a way of challenging 'fat-phobic' attitudes and help larger women empower themselves to appreciate the bodies they are in.
A pageant that only allows entry to women of the size commonly found attractive does not do this. It only formalises the prejudice that would have not allowed them to compete fairly anyway.
Despite the two size requirements seeming comparable, they are not.
(3) Beauty pageants for transgendered people
There are many pageants for transsexual and other transgendered people. Transgendered people may find it difficult to compete in standard pageants due to transphobic attitudes. Even though a person may not be aware that a trans woman is trans just by sight, she may still be considered unattractive and even disgusting if the judges are aware that she is transsexual.
It is then no surprise that there are dedicated events for transsexual and other transgendered people to celebrate their beauty and be judged fairly amongst other transgendered people.
It would not be the same to create a new special pageant that only allowed entry to non-transgendered persons. That is a group that dominates standard beauty pageants anyway. To create that rule would only serve to formalise transphobic attitudes.
(4) Miss Black America
This is one of the pageants that gets most attention for being 'racist' but it is actually quite similar to the above.
Black people are a statistical minority in America but the bigger issue is that black people suffer through racism. It is a common attitude that black people are less attractive than white people. Even when people accept that black people can be attractive, it is typically black people with lighter skin and with features more similar to white people that are judged to be so.
In fact, the reason why Miss Black America began was not even just because racist attitudes stopped black people being judged in 'Miss America' fairly but because racist attitudes meant that black people black women were not even allowed to compete in Miss America.
'White only' pageant could not possibly be compared to the above. A white-only pageant is not an attempt to show an under-represented group's beauty. It is not a reaction to racism. It is not the same thing.
An exception actually strengthens the case; if the pageant was for women of very pale skin, where black people are excluded incidental rather than deliberately. I've certainly seen (mostly Goth) websites dedicated to this (minority!) beauty ideal.
----------------------
In these examples we have seen rules that seem superficially to be the same. Allowing only transgendered/cisgendered people, allowing only 'fat'/'thin' women, allowing only white/black women.
They are not the same however because one set of rules is intended to give representation to under-represented groups and challenge prejudice. The other merely enforces common ideals of beauty that can already be seen -everywhere-.
The misguided first reaction of many people is to see that these rules are not equal and thus think them to be unfair. In an equal and unfair society this would be justified thinking.
In a society where things are not fair and equal these seemingly 'unfair' rules actually challenge inequality.
Here are some more non-beauty pageant related examples:
Some night clubs are dedicated to LGBT people. Night clubs dedicated to the use of straight peopl are considered homophobic.
There are trans clubs that charge higher entrance to non-trans people. A club that charged higher entrance to trans people would be considered transphobic.
There are transgender specific counselling services. There are no special counselling services for non-transgendered people.
We have Black History Month to celebrate black history. There is no White History Month and this would be considered racist.
There are Gay Pride marches that match to celebrate minority sexual lifestyles and challenge prejudice. There are no Straight Pride marches.
There are charities to help disabled people. There are no charities to help able-bodied people.
There are more rape crisis facilities for women than there are for men.
There is a 'Special Olympics' but no Olympics that forbids entry to able-bodied people.
Et cetera,
All of these cases are unequal on the surface but they are not creating inequality but rather reacting and addressing inequality.
Link: Misogyny, up close and personal - linky
Link: why good girls still finish last - linky
I spent Monday bank holiday with Lacuna_Raze, which was fun :o)
Unfortunately, the rest of the midweek wasn't nearly so much fun, with my only reason to even leave the house being a Job Centre appointment :o/ I did have plenty of time to finish reading Dan Abnett's Ravenor omnibus, which was probably the best of his books yet :o)
Industrial Fallout V on the Friday helped perk things up. Was busier than last time (which was announced with less notice than usual), which was good. Nice to see a variety of familar faces at these events, although Lacuna_Raze didn't fancy it, which was a shame. Still, a good night out and it's nice that it's still drawing a crowd even at it's fourth time; should hopefully last.
I got a taxi back to Lacuna_Raze's and stayed there for a change. Since she had just had Sky installed we spent Saturday in eating ice cream and fast food in bed rather than going out anywhere :oP Even though it may not sound the most interesting thing in the world, we're quite good at keeping each other entertained so it was very good all the same :o)
Unfortunately I missed LittleCyberAlex's gaming night on Sunday as my phone died before I got the text message confirming that it was on. :o(
Thoughts: Why not all discrimination is bad
Last week I wrote about the differences between prejudice against marginalised groups and prejudice against privilege groups: linky
I described how a black person who is racist against a white person is just as wrong as a white person who is racist against a black person but how the issues differed in sensitivity due to one being a severe social issue and the other not.
Now I want to describe how discrimination against a marginalised group can be bad whilst the same discrimination against a privileged group can be -good-.
There are tons of examples I could use but I'm going to use a less typical example:
Beauty pageants and contests.
If we take a general beauty pageant, such as the 'Miss America' contest then I think it's entry requirements should be open and inclusive. If Miss America said that it didn't allow black women, gay women, transgendered women (etc) then I Would consider that discriminatory and unfair.
That being said, there are times when it feels appropriate to include restrictions in more minor pageants.
Here are two good reasons that we might do that:
(1) To create a pageant for a group of people who can not compete equally in standard pageants due to a disadvantage.
(2) To create a pageant for a group who is under-represented or not represented at all in standard pageants due to being a statistical minority.
Here are some examples, starting with the banal:
(1) Beauty pageants for women body builders.
Common attitudes towards beauty mean that women body builders can not compete fairly in a standard beauty pageant. They are also a minority group.
For this reason it makes sense to have a separate beauty pageant that only allows body builders.
There is no need to create a new and separate pageant for non-body building women as this type of beauty is already heavily represented in 'Miss America'. There's no need to create one.
(2) Beauty pageants for plus-sized women.
Women who are not 'thin' are not a statistical minority and make up a very significant portion of our society. Still, we live in a sizeist 'thin-is-in' society where larger women are considered 'less attractive'.
For this reason there is an incentive to create a special pageants to explore and celebrate this less commonly appreciated type of beauty.
Further, in doing so we find a way of challenging 'fat-phobic' attitudes and help larger women empower themselves to appreciate the bodies they are in.
A pageant that only allows entry to women of the size commonly found attractive does not do this. It only formalises the prejudice that would have not allowed them to compete fairly anyway.
Despite the two size requirements seeming comparable, they are not.
(3) Beauty pageants for transgendered people
There are many pageants for transsexual and other transgendered people. Transgendered people may find it difficult to compete in standard pageants due to transphobic attitudes. Even though a person may not be aware that a trans woman is trans just by sight, she may still be considered unattractive and even disgusting if the judges are aware that she is transsexual.
It is then no surprise that there are dedicated events for transsexual and other transgendered people to celebrate their beauty and be judged fairly amongst other transgendered people.
It would not be the same to create a new special pageant that only allowed entry to non-transgendered persons. That is a group that dominates standard beauty pageants anyway. To create that rule would only serve to formalise transphobic attitudes.
(4) Miss Black America
This is one of the pageants that gets most attention for being 'racist' but it is actually quite similar to the above.
Black people are a statistical minority in America but the bigger issue is that black people suffer through racism. It is a common attitude that black people are less attractive than white people. Even when people accept that black people can be attractive, it is typically black people with lighter skin and with features more similar to white people that are judged to be so.
In fact, the reason why Miss Black America began was not even just because racist attitudes stopped black people being judged in 'Miss America' fairly but because racist attitudes meant that black people black women were not even allowed to compete in Miss America.
'White only' pageant could not possibly be compared to the above. A white-only pageant is not an attempt to show an under-represented group's beauty. It is not a reaction to racism. It is not the same thing.
An exception actually strengthens the case; if the pageant was for women of very pale skin, where black people are excluded incidental rather than deliberately. I've certainly seen (mostly Goth) websites dedicated to this (minority!) beauty ideal.
----------------------
In these examples we have seen rules that seem superficially to be the same. Allowing only transgendered/cisgendered people, allowing only 'fat'/'thin' women, allowing only white/black women.
They are not the same however because one set of rules is intended to give representation to under-represented groups and challenge prejudice. The other merely enforces common ideals of beauty that can already be seen -everywhere-.
The misguided first reaction of many people is to see that these rules are not equal and thus think them to be unfair. In an equal and unfair society this would be justified thinking.
In a society where things are not fair and equal these seemingly 'unfair' rules actually challenge inequality.
Here are some more non-beauty pageant related examples:
Some night clubs are dedicated to LGBT people. Night clubs dedicated to the use of straight peopl are considered homophobic.
There are trans clubs that charge higher entrance to non-trans people. A club that charged higher entrance to trans people would be considered transphobic.
There are transgender specific counselling services. There are no special counselling services for non-transgendered people.
We have Black History Month to celebrate black history. There is no White History Month and this would be considered racist.
There are Gay Pride marches that match to celebrate minority sexual lifestyles and challenge prejudice. There are no Straight Pride marches.
There are charities to help disabled people. There are no charities to help able-bodied people.
There are more rape crisis facilities for women than there are for men.
There is a 'Special Olympics' but no Olympics that forbids entry to able-bodied people.
Et cetera,
All of these cases are unequal on the surface but they are not creating inequality but rather reacting and addressing inequality.
Link: Misogyny, up close and personal - linky
Link: why good girls still finish last - linky