Support the Ban Bossy campaign

[Keyrock]

We should band together and start a campaign called Ban Banning.  Banning is ruining the world.  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

We should band together and start a campaign called Ban Banning.  Banning is ruining the world.

 

But if we ban banning, the ban on banning will be banned.

[Keyrock]

 

We should band together and start a campaign called Ban Banning.  Banning is ruining the world.

But if we ban banning, the ban on banning will be banned.

 

Crap, I hadn't thought of that.  This is like that time a Babel Fish was used as proof of the non-existence of God.

 

Edit:  What if the ban on banning starts after the ban takes effect and isn't retroactive?

Edited March 13, 2014 by Keyrock

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

We should band together and start a campaign called Ban Banning.  Banning is ruining the world.

 

But if we ban banning, the ban on banning will be banned.

Crap, I hadn't thought of that.  This is like that time a Babel Fish was used as proof of the non-existence of God.

 

Edit:  What if the ban on banning starts after the ban takes effect and isn't retroactive?

A ban on banning after a final irreversible ban is given on banning may be able to prevent a ban on banning from being banned.

 

I'll consult a lawyer.

[Keyrock]

Alright, I think I got it.  It's a ban on banning with a single immutable exception built in.  The ban on banning bans all banning except the ban on banning itself.  Thus, the ban on banning is the only ban, all other bans will be instantly banned by the ban on banning, which is the only ban that is allowed not to be banned.

[Amentep]

 

²Note though that while I agree that boys and girls learn differently and learn at different rates, I do reject the notion that men or women taken as enormous groups (as opposed to individual vs individual) can't compete equally in education - unless there are some other cognitive factors at play (like dyscalculia).  Experience teaches us otherwise.  The problem in the educational system is that, honestly, it tends to be "one size fits all" which IMO is a terrible way to operate if your goal is to identify individual talent, skill and/or proclivity.

 

"Can" and "are inclined to" are different things, and while you already addressed this in your post, I think the problem is that the data used to "identify" gender equality problems glosses over this fact. Underlying the issue of gender equality is also the question of whether men and women are actually equal, value judgments notwithstanding. Your pointing out of differences in verbal skill development rates is a good hint that this is a problem that is, at best, oversimplified. I'm sure someone more intelligent and insightful than me could find more faults with this sort of social engineering initiatives, but that's enough to give me pause.

 

 

In terms of "can" / "inclined to" I'm a big believer (when you get past foundational skill building) in the "you can bring the horse to water but you can't make it drink". A boy and a girl with no significant cognition problems should have the potential to direct their skill and focus where they want in terms of areas of study.  If they choose not to follow a particular path (say STEM) internally after having ensured there are no external pressures that would influence the decision then there's nothing else to do.

 

That said, while I support, for example, our efforts to increase women and minorities in STEM majors, I think the focus needs to be on - as always - educating students on their choices, what those choices mean for them, ensuring access and then letting people make up their own mind.  My problem is when we have ideas that are only realistic if you start pushing people towards options instead of allowing them to choose what they want to do (or eliminating options so people have to do what you want them to do).

 

Essentially, even assuming a "high level" equality (because, lets face it, individuals are inherently un-equal), the only equality achievable without forcing people to take roles regardless of inclination (or skill) is equality to access.

 

As an aside, just the fact that we know boys and girls attain intelligence (however we quantify it) though, typically studies show the differences don't create huge differences in total learning over time (albeit if it did, I'm not entirely sure our current educational system would be willing to admit it).

 

Also, I'm going to object to the assumption that the goal of education is in any way identifying talent. Your wording makes it ambiguous whether it's what you believe is the building principle of education or rather what you believe it should be, but modern education is there to provide a standarized process through which people can obtain a qualification that will be required for a job, and little else. Talent is irrelevant.

 

I'll disagree with you on two points.  Of course this is my opinion and my experience is with the US system and international education is a different ballgame, really.

 

One, education should have a duty to support someone's talent and proclivity.  Someone with natural ability with numbers, someone with a natural talent in art - if their interest lies in that direction - are going to go farther quicker if studying in those areas. Note I'm not advocating that students with talent in particular areas be forced to follow those paths - if you're good in physics but want to pursue basket weaving (or vice versa) this should be encouraged.  Engagement in the material that interests you is better than having a natural talent for something in the long run.

 

Second, your assertion that modern education (and here I'm working on the idea we're talking about higher education, not primary/secondary education) is about providing standardized job qualifications doesn't follow through.  While this does differ internationally to varying degree, the US is built around a liberal arts model whose goal is - generally - not about teaching a skill in a one-to-one relation with a job.  The inherent goal of a liberal arts education is to create a person who is well rounded in a variety of areas of critical, scientific or artistic thought.

 

While there are "technical" educations (which is more skill and job/career focused - like HVAC training and the like) the vast majority of people graduating from a 4 year college in, lets say business, are not being prepared with specific skills to run a specific type of business - they have broad overview (and some specific) knowledge of accounting, economics, legal issues, management, communication skills, etc. that would help them in a position at a business.

 

If the education is good, in theory, the person with the business degree should be able to slip into the managerial role and with company specific training and succeed, but again the goal isn't job training; it creates a background of field related knowledge and critical thinking skills as opposed to a specific skill set like, again, a degree in HVAC or plumbing would.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Amentep

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Alright, I think I got it. It's a ban on banning with a single immutable exception built in. The ban on banning bans all banning except the ban on banning itself. Thus, the ban on banning is the only ban, all other bans will be instantly banned by the ban on banning, which is the only ban that is allowed not to be banned.

The amount of bans in this post is almost enough for my eyeballs to ban blood from them.

Edited March 13, 2014 by KaineParker

[Leferd]

 

Alright, I think I got it. It's a ban on banning with a single immutable exception built in. The ban on banning bans all banning except the ban on banning itself. Thus, the ban on banning is the only ban, all other bans will be instantly banned by the ban on banning, which is the only ban that is allowed not to be banned.

The amount of bans in this post is almost enough for my eyeballs to ban blood from them.

Guys! Guys! KISS principle, remember? That's the problem with Amerika these days. Always so quick with the nuclear option and start banning bans.

 

Simply ask Fio or the Guildmaster to include "ban" on the censorship list for the forum filters.

[Oerwinde]

"If you guys think that men are unequal compared to women please give me 3 examples that I'll investigate and we can campaign together on?"

 

My last post gave examples. Others gave you examples. You'd need to have your head buried in the sand if you aren't at least a little aware of them. It's common knowledge that men are more likely to be screwed in the divorce than women simply because theya re the men and the stereotype that men are bad parents and women are good parents. hence the term 'deadbeat dad' is commonly used even though there are plenty of women who abandon their children. But, they are never called out as 'deadbeat moms' and if they were a 'feminist' would call the term sexist yet they'll glad use 'deadbeat dad' repeatedly.

 

A man accused of rape - even falsely (happens a lot more than you think) can have his entire life ruined even if the truth comes out.

 

A man starts or has a 'man only club' he is being sexist and mean.

 

A woman starts or has a 'woman only club' she is protecting women from the big bad rapist men.

 

DISGUSTING.

 

Modern feminists don't know what true equality is. In fact, the term 'feminist' is sexist espciaily if you use it in place of 'equality' because it implicitly implies than the desire for equality is a feminine trait which is absolutely asanine.

As an example, a coworker of mine was engaged in a custody battle for his daughter. The girls mother had had her first two kids taken away, and the battle began when his daughter and her youngest were going to be taken away due to her throwing her youngest at her boyfriend after he forced her to leave a bar. She missed 2/3 court dates because she didn't feel like going, and it still took over a year for him to win custody.

[Volourn]

At least he won... others are not so lucky.

[Keyrock]

On the for real tip, though.  While I has some fun with Ban Banning Peter Piper Picked A Peck Of Peppered Pickles style, I was serious about the idea.  Banning things is a weak ass copout we use in society to pretend to 'fix' problems.  It's akin to sweeping dirt under the carpet.  The dirt is still there just not immediately readily apparent,  It's getting rid of an effect and pretending the problem is fixed, when nothing has been fixed.  Instead of banning the effect, we should be trying to fix the cause.

[HoonDing]

Ban this thread.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

On the for real tip, though.  While I has some fun with Ban Banning Peter Piper Picked A Peck Of Peppered Pickles style, I was serious about the idea.  Banning things is a weak ass copout we use in society to pretend to 'fix' problems.  It's akin to sweeping dirt under the carpet.  The dirt is still there just not immediately readily apparent,  It's getting rid of an effect and pretending the problem is fixed, when nothing has been fixed.  Instead of banning the effect, we should be trying to fix the cause.

But if we just refuse to acknowledge problems they go away right?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

DP.

Edited March 13, 2014 by KaineParker

[Monte Carlo]

[BruceVC]

 

Sadly this is the necessary state we find ourselves in, many governments are forced to do this as some people need to dragged to the table where we discuss how gender equality is here to stay and be implemented by legislation if necessary. I fail to see how addressing an obvious failure of equality is fascist ?

[Malcador]

I guess some people don't like the principle of government doing stuff with 'it's good for you, really' as a motivation.  Think of your reaction if the government "dragged people to the table" for an issue you weren't for, for example.

[Monte Carlo]

@ Bruce

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Keyrock]

Dang, I never figured Bruce would be pro-Orwellian.

[BruceVC]

Dang, I never figured Bruce would be pro-Orwellian.

 

Thats harsh, I don't believe anything like the desciption below 

 

"Orwellian" is an adjective describing the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It connotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, surveillance, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments. Often, this includes the circumstances depicted in his novels, particularly Nineteen Eighty-Four.^[1]

[Keyrock]

Well, the government mandating equality is yet another step down the slippery slope toward totalitarianism...  for our own good, naturally.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Governments should be required to maintain equality under the law, as in no double standards in legal systems. Wanting the government to force individuals to treat others equally on private matters is something else entirely, that something being authoritarian rule.

[Meshugger]

^Pretty much. And add the whole "The road to tyranny is pawed on good intensions" to it as well.

[BruceVC]

Governments should be required to maintain equality under the law, as in no double standards in legal systems. Wanting the government to force individuals to treat others equally on private matters is something else entirely, that something being authoritarian rule.

 

Where would this "private matters " apply  in a society. Where do the rules of equality not matter....Hades, Forgotten Realms maybe?

 

Oh is this where you get those religious cult groups that live in remote parts of the country and where incest and pedophilia is practiced? Those are private matters....

[Monte Carlo]

Bruce, serious question - during your education did you ever study any political science or theory.

 

Do you understand the concepts of freedom of thought, speech and association? That includes the freedom not to associate.