Problematic Stuff

[pErvinalia]

Have you read the article? It's all John Howard, Tony Abbott and crew. These are the same people who have been drumming up trouble with the "history wars" for decades. And while they are definitely of the loony right, don't forget two of them were our Prime Ministers, with one of them being so for a record 13 years.

I've read articles in the past about "history wars". These guys want Australian history at schools to be like it was in the 50s - a brief mention of "aborigines", then a triumphant saga of exploration and settlement...

The 'history wars' would actually make an interesting thread. I certainly couldn't be arsed doing the research necessary to create it, but someone who was, say, recently retired could certainly put together such a thread...

[JimC]

It's just a bit tricky, in the sense that if gay only venues were a legally accepted thing, conservative elements would have the ability to exclude them in other venues. At least that's how it seems to me - perhaps I'm wrong about the ramifications...

[JimC]

Have you read the article? It's all John Howard, Tony Abbott and crew. These are the same people who have been drumming up trouble with the "history wars" for decades. And while they are definitely of the loony right, don't forget two of them were our Prime Ministers, with one of them being so for a record 13 years.

I've read articles in the past about "history wars". These guys want Australian history at schools to be like it was in the 50s - a brief mention of "aborigines", then a triumphant saga of exploration and settlement...

The 'history wars' would actually make an interesting thread. I certainly couldn't be arsed doing the research necessary to create it, but someone who was, say, recently retired could certainly put together such a thread...

Maybe.

One day...

[Hermit]

...don't forget two of them were our Prime Ministers, with one of them being so for a record 13 years.

Menzies was PM for 18 years, five months and twelve days, thanks in large part to the DLP.

And yes, various history department harbour a surfeit of right-wing historians. Some of them specialise in denying the massacres of Aborigines by colonial soldiers as well as freelancing farmers and pastoralists. Also the systematic destruction of their societies resulting in the Stolen Generations. They engage in what can be termed literal whitewashing, but that is of course not problematic in comparison to the political correctness brigades destroying our individual liberties.

[pErvinalia]

...don't forget two of them were our Prime Ministers, with one of them being so for a record 13 years.

Menzies was PM for 18 years, five months and twelve days, thanks in large part to the DLP.

Ha, I had that all wrong. I thought they were both at 13 years. But Howard was only at about 11.5 years. Fucken lightweight! And he got voted out at the election. I think (but I'm cautious to say that when you are around.. ) he is the only sitting PM to ever be voted out of his seat. Sucked in, cunt!

And yes, various history department harbour a surfeit of right-wing historians. Some of them specialise in denying the massacres of Aborigines by colonial soldiers as well as freelancing farmers and pastoralists. Also the systematic destruction of their societies resulting in the Stolen Generations. They engage in what can be termed literal whitewashing, but that is of course not problematic in comparison to the political correctness brigades destroying our individual liberties.

Exactly. They are infringing on the free market of ideas, where those with the most money and social inertia behind them get to set our history in stone. It's fucking not fair to those rich white conservative historians, I tell you!

[Svartalf]

that's definitely an overt refusal from doing your job... illegal last time I checked, like the good old " no niggers, Irishmen or dogs allowed"

[Animavore]

pErvinalia wrote:

I love how you led with "so gays can exclude straights"... It's like "there's good [and bad] people on both sides"..

I know what you mean, in the sense that discriminatory and hurtful exclusion is much more likely to operate in the opposite direction.

However, having said that, it is possible that some gay people would like to have "gay only" venues of one sort or another. If they did, and wanted that to be legally acceptable, they would also have to put up with "no gays allowed" venues, I would think...

Never been turned away from a gay bar.

EDIT: Not for being straight anyway.

[JimC]

They were hoping to turn you, ani!

[Svartalf]

try going into a lezzie bar now...

[Forty Two]

I'm sure we would agree on one thing, that the course you allude to is ideologically driven, and is at odds with rational, evidence-based scientific inquiry, and that it and its ilk need robust criticism.

[
Indeed, because the course, and many others like it, assert as fact that reason, science, and empirical evidence, and objectivity in general, are white male concepts and tools of the patriarchy.

However, I would be fairly certain that if a competent survey of all courses offered at American universities were done, the proportion that would fit into that category would be very small indeed.

You could say the same about Differential Equations. If a competent survey of all courses offered at American universities were done, the proportion that relate to higher mathematics would be very small indeed. That doesn't make the course somehow abberations in their field. The course is right in the mainstream of gender studies programs throughout the university system.

One would have to be careful in assigning them to this fringe category, too - there could be a course called "The history of feminism", which dispassionately examine this important social phenomenon without ideological blinkers...

As an aside, I don't think the fact that the course in question is offered at a wealthy private college has any bearing on a debate as to the extent that such courses are a true reflection of US academia...

It's not determinative, but the fact that a course is offered at world class college, not some 13th grade state school, is indicative of perceived quality level (perceived by people who run and authorize courses to be offered at world class colleges). I would expect, for example, Yale, Harvard, MIT, Georgetown, Cornell, Brown, and the like to be fairly discerning in the types of courses they offer, and Hobart and William, while not Ivy League, is a top-tier liberal arts college.

[Forty Two]

pErvinalia wrote:

I love how you led with "so gays can exclude straights"... It's like "there's good [and bad] people on both sides"..

I know what you mean, in the sense that discriminatory and hurtful exclusion is much more likely to operate in the opposite direction.

There is discrimination in relation to gay clubs and resorts, as they are sometimes advertised as "gay only" and that sort of thing. The qualifier "hurtful" exclusion is important, because, of course, there is the argument that where say women, or minority races, or gays, excluse men, whites or straights, it's not "hurtful," even if it's exclusion.

However, the law doesn't depend on hurt. In any jurisdiction I'm aware of, the public accommodations laws are not based on "homsexuality", but are, rather, based on "sexual orientation," meaning that they are worded neutrally, so as to expressly provide for non-discrimination based on any sexual orientation, not just certain sexual orientations. If a state law (in the US) read that it would be unlawful to exclude homosexuals, but lawful to exclude heterosexuals, then it would likely be unconstitutional as a violation of the equal protection clause.

However, having said that, it is possible that some gay people would like to have "gay only" venues of one sort or another. If they did, and wanted that to be legally acceptable, they would also have to put up with "no gays allowed" venues, I would think...

Well, in the US, as a matter of constitutional law, I think the answer to that is yes. If a state here does not provide protection for sexual orientation, then one can't sue for discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, if they do provide protection for sexual orientation, they can't single out one orientation for protection, and leave the others twisting in the wind.

However, there is an ideological position that says that there must be different treatment under the law in order to create or move toward equality. That would be the ideological position that says that a minority or oppressed group is the one that is oppressed, and the majority group isn't, so exclusion or discrimination against the majority group would not be illegal. it's the same ideological position that says white people are racist, and black people aren't, and can't be.

That's a tug-of-war going on.

[Forty Two]

Arguably the media wears a large chunk of the responsibility for Trump. A weak as piss media, by not adequately confronting the default neoliberalism narrative over the last 40 years, has allowed bullshit concepts like "trickle down", regulation slashing, and "small government", to become essentially entrenched principles in governance. And by further peddling the fear that right wing politicians push about brown people stealing jobs and welfare at the same time, and also wanting to marry your children and blow up your friends. The media is responsible in part for this state of affairs which is an indebted, fearful, insecure worker voting for a dangerous moron like Trump.

When a media outlet is obliged to reflect the views of it's owners what more can we expect from the journalists it employs?

Yeah, the neoliberal capitalist ethic is sort of self-reinforcing. Media companies make cuts in the aim of "efficiency" and profits, and you end up with a shit organisation that doesn't adequately challenge neoliberalism and "trickle-down" etc, which in turn leads to more cuts... rinse repeat.

Assuming that's true, what alternative do you suggest?

[Forty Two]

Well that was predictable. I'm surprised it took this long.

Tennessee hardware store puts up 'No Gays Allowed' sign
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /29552615/

That would not survive a legal challenge - it is far more overt than not baking a cake...

Not having researched it, I think Tennessee does not have sexual orientation as a protected class, so gays can exclude straights and vice versa, so there may be not much anyone can do about it.

I love how you led with "so gays can exclude straights"... It's like "there's good [and bad] people on both sides"..

Well, gays are just as good and bad as straights, so yes. Some gays and some straights will irrationally discriminate. I saw an article the other day about a gay man who told a judge flat out that he had gotten himself infected with HIV on purpose, so that he could infect other people with it. That's a bad guy, IMO.

Suggesting there aren't good people on both sides is to essentially subscribe to the notion that a racial, sexual or sexual orientation group is good or bad as a group, rather than made up of individuals who are individually good or bad.

If your reference to "sides" was that bigots are bad, and non-bigots are good, well, sure, there in that case we wouldn't find good people on both sides. Being on the side of bigotry is bad. However, any suggestion that gays can't be bigots is absurd. So, my comment about straights and gays both being able to lawfully discriminate above is not suggesting that there are good people on the side of bigotry. It's suggesting that there bigots among both straights and gays.

[pErvinalia]

Arguably the media wears a large chunk of the responsibility for Trump. A weak as piss media, by not adequately confronting the default neoliberalism narrative over the last 40 years, has allowed bullshit concepts like "trickle down", regulation slashing, and "small government", to become essentially entrenched principles in governance. And by further peddling the fear that right wing politicians push about brown people stealing jobs and welfare at the same time, and also wanting to marry your children and blow up your friends. The media is responsible in part for this state of affairs which is an indebted, fearful, insecure worker voting for a dangerous moron like Trump.

When a media outlet is obliged to reflect the views of it's owners what more can we expect from the journalists it employs?

Yeah, the neoliberal capitalist ethic is sort of self-reinforcing. Media companies make cuts in the aim of "efficiency" and profits, and you end up with a shit organisation that doesn't adequately challenge neoliberalism and "trickle-down" etc, which in turn leads to more cuts... rinse repeat.

Assuming that's true, what alternative do you suggest?

Well, assured government funding for a strong and independent (as much as possible) media organisation, and then not allowing the private media scape to concentrate enough such that diversity of opinion is stifled.

[pErvinalia]

That would not survive a legal challenge - it is far more overt than not baking a cake...

Not having researched it, I think Tennessee does not have sexual orientation as a protected class, so gays can exclude straights and vice versa, so there may be not much anyone can do about it.

I love how you led with "so gays can exclude straights"... It's like "there's good [and bad] people on both sides"..

Well, gays are just as good and bad as straights, so yes. Some gays and some straights will irrationally discriminate. I saw an article the other day about a gay man who told a judge flat out that he had gotten himself infected with HIV on purpose, so that he could infect other people with it. That's a bad guy, IMO.

Suggesting there aren't good people on both sides is to essentially subscribe to the notion that a racial, sexual or sexual orientation group is good or bad as a group, rather than made up of individuals who are individually good or bad.

If your reference to "sides" was that bigots are bad, and non-bigots are good, well, sure, there in that case we wouldn't find good people on both sides. Being on the side of bigotry is bad. However, any suggestion that gays can't be bigots is absurd. So, my comment about straights and gays both being able to lawfully discriminate above is not suggesting that there are good people on the side of bigotry. It's suggesting that there bigots among both straights and gays.

No one is suggesting that gays can't be bigots. The point is that hateful (and murderous) bigotry is a FAR bigger problem for gays than by gay. So, your Trump-like "good/bad people on both sides" is disingenuous.