CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic


RSS Thousandin1

Reward Points:1933
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
96%
Arguments:3062
Debates:15
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
thousandin1(1933) Clarified
1 point

You are from the USA and naturally take the self-determinist view I see. Ultimately we can take any action regardless of social conditions. For example, I know that people will ridicule me if I walk out of my house naked. I can still choose to do it but yet the social attitude to nudism is a factor that dissuades me from doing this (as well as the cold..).

Yes, all true. But despite this, there are areas in the world where nudism is more accepted and less ridiculed. This is solely due to exposure (pun intended). If nudism can get localized support simply by having others recognize their number, surely women can get support in the STEM fields similarly by weight of numbers, if only they're willing to step up.

Right. If something is a barrier to doing something, but it is important to us, then we should push on through in order to achieve what we want. This is not to say that there isn't a barrier that makes it more difficult and that should be questioned on a societal level.

I never suggested that we shouldn't question things on the societal level- rather, I pointed out that changes on this scale take the course of several generations to take effect. We can (and are, really) making change that should improve the gender ratio in subsequent generations- but the only thing that can reasonably improve the gender ratio for the current generation is more female participation. It's very simple math, really.

I remember when I was 16 I enrolled in a childcare course but dropped out because I was so embarrassed to be the only guy there and felt the course was very female orientated. I also felt I was treated differently from everyone else. I see that as a problem and it went beyond the mere fact of me being surrounded by girls - in other situations this is not so unpleasant. Ultimately I guess I didn't want to do the course enough to continue with the discomfort. However, if the course is very easy and comfortable for one gender, but difficult and uncomfortable for the other, then it is surely worth looking at why that is beyond merely saying "the individual has to try harder".

Of course it is worth looking at why that is- but how is the next generation to accept child care as being gender-blind when they have numerous examples of females in child care and only a few examples of males? The process of social change in that direction necessitates men entering that field, in the exact same manner that social change in the stem fields necessitates women entering that field. The social change will not happen without the examples, and the examples have to be willing to step out of their comfort zone for the sake of themselves and the future.

thousandin1(1933) Clarified
1 point

Your method 2 is saying men could back out but really there is more options. In context of the social environment method 2 should be "men could foster better working environments for all" rather than men not participating at all. Why wouldn't men want to change their detrimental social behaviors?

It falls flat right here. Again- "Men" aren't the problem here. Specific men are. An egalitarian man doesn't have a detrimental social behavior to change- all he can do is put pressure on other men in the hope that they will change. This requires a number of outspoken individuals and a significant amount of support. Even then, if the men at these functions clean up their acts, I sincerely doubt women will suddenly come flooding in- especially because they are absent to begin with, and therefore unable to observe the change in question- and given their proclivity at current to avoid a skewed gender ratio because of the attitudes of a subset thereof, I sincerely doubt they're going to take the men at their word here. I could be wrong.

Shouldn't men also serve as examples to the subsequent generation?

I didn't say that they shouldn't- just in this specific case they can't. Men are fundamentally unable to provide an example of a successful female engineer in order to encourage young women to pursue a career in engineering. We can attempt to influence our peers and our children towards a more egalitarian perspective- and should do so- but this alone doesn't solve the problem. Numerous strong female role models are needed in these fields, and significant female participation is necessary to establish these.

I'll concur that both sides need to work to improve the underlying issue- but in terms of the overt issue, that of gender ratio in STEM functions, the burden lies solely on women to improve their attendance, not men to refrain from attending. No matter what is done with the underlying issue, balancing the ratio necessitates either increasing the number of women, decreasing the number of men, or both.

Have you considered that the men willing to forgo a function to improve the gender ratio are most likely NOT the men making women uncomfortable in the first place? As such, I would expect the proportion of 'bad' men to increase, even if the raw number of men decreases, making things even worse for the women.

Your underlying statement says wait it out, sludge through the shit and things will get better later on. Only if women get more involved even. Again this absolves men of any hand in fixing inequalities today. If someone steps on your toe and then the response is "things will get better later", it certainly isn't taking action to work towards a better more common goal...like stop people from stepping on toes.

Your flawed interpretation of my underlying statement says that. My statement says nothing to this effect whatsoever.

Or you could attend and if you see a situation that is detrimental towards equality you can call it out. This is part of serving as an example to the subsequent generation. If you see racism, sexism or homophobia why not call it out?

And how does calling it out at a function with an already skewed gender ratio supposed to improve that gender ratio? Unless you're banking on lots of men just walking out after that. It's not going to summon female attendees into existence by any stretch. And some already do this anyway.

As stated already you don't need to not attend.

And you're not comprehending basic mathematics.

2000 people at an event. 1800 Men, 200 women. If one man calls out others for sexist behavior, there are still 1800 Men and 200 women. If 1600 more women attend, the ratio evens out. If 1600 fewer men attend, the ratio evens out. If 800 fewer men attend and 800 more women attend, the ratio evens out. No change in attitudes is going to change that ratio- only attendance. And without the attendance of individuals who will back the person calling others out, it's only going to backfire.

Please advise as to how one can change a skewed gender ratio without some combination of adding more of one gender and removing some of another?

As stated already you don't need to not attend. But why wouldn't you act as I noted, serve as a example to subsequent generations? When you kick the can further down the road you are serving as an example aren't you? The message is different though when you do this action. When people call it out then someone gives the bootstrap argument followed by kicking the can further down the road is an argument for keeping the status quo.

Why would we not want to remove hurdles that deter a populace from education, a populace that would greatly benefit from such education and in turn benefit everyone else?

Did you miss my statements about attitudes already improving, but generally taking multiple generations to do so? You're missing the trees for the forest here, I think. This is all already happening- but women enduring some potential discomfort and paving the way for their descendants is the most significant thing we can do to influence this. You point out 10 male engineers and 1 female engineer to your kid and then tell him that men and women are equals in the field, and it's not going to add up in his head. You point out 10 of each, and it sends a different message. We need more female participation now to affect the changes that will facilitate more female participation in the future. Don't you get that?

What I'm suggesting here is not mutually exclusive to what you are suggesting in the slightest. Some men certainly need to clean up their act, and maybe more men could stand to call them out on it more often- but changing the attitudes of generations takes a joint effort, and female participation is the single largest factor in doing so here. Men leaving the field, while it may balance the genders in the short term, does not accomplish this. Women entering the field serve to accomplish both.

That is gatekeeping. It is keeping the power to permit the standards you deem worthy or fair in spite of not earning such a privilege.

It is not gatekeeping- it is abstinence by choice. Nothing you have said changes that; all you've done here is explain the rationale behind said abstinence. I never claimed the abstinence was irrational, only that as a mechanic it significantly delays the progression of women in this field, which additionally delays the acceptance of women in this field.

Look at every oppressed group throughout history- are you aware of any cases where the majority just up and decided to change their ways to accomodate a minority? Or, rather, has every case necessitated members of the minority stepping out of their comfort zone, taking a stand, sending a message, and engendering support amongst the majority? We already have the stage set for accepting women in this field. We now need women in the field to accept. Only once a critical mass of women is achieved can we demonstrate- at a scale that nobody can deny- that the gender of the engineer is irrelevant. We still won't change the chauvinist engineer into an egalitarian, but we can sure as hell provide a real-life example for his son that conflicts with the chauvinist's rhetoric. Only with more women, though.

thousandin1(1933) Clarified
2 points

Proof that an omnipotent being can't exist: can he create a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either way he can't be omnipotent.

You keep bringing this up. It is not, in fact, a paradox. I agree with you overall and don't believe in a god of any kind myself, but the idea that one has proof of the non-existence of any gods is ridiculous, even more so when that 'proof' is flawed logic based on wordplay rather than actual evidence of any kind. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard than that.

thousandin1(1933) Clarified
1 point

The issue preventing women from attending these functions has been stated to be the gender ratio.

There are exactly three ways that the gender ratio can be evened out.

1) More women attend the functions to balance out the greater number of men.

2) Less men attend the functions to balance out the smaller number of women.

3) A combination of 1 and 2.

Method 1 is a positive action taken by women that can directly improve the circumstances. They benefit directly from this, and to nobody's detriment.

Method 2 is a negative action taken by men that can result in a similar improvement of the circumstances for women. Women benefit from this, to the detriment of the men who must give up the ability to attend said functions for the sake of the women.

Your take seems to absolve men of any hand in the issue.

Not at all. I'm aware that certain men are directly responsible for making circumstances uncomfortable for certain women. Changes in social attitudes, however, typically occur over generations. The issue you would address benefits women down the road, but essentially leaves every woman who would pursue these fields today in the lurch.

The framing is more like "current social conditions are unfavorable environments for women, this deters women". Your take on this is kind of blame the victim.

It is no secret that things are historically skewed towards the benefit if males over females. To ask for "...stepping out of ones element..." to be the prerequisite addressing inequality is really asking to be met on the uneven playing field. Privilege likes to be met on its own terms. It is gatekeeping.

Current social conditions are more favorable towards women than they have ever been (probably slightly hyperbolic, apologies there). Those conditions are steadily improving in numerous spheres. Social conditions arise from the attitudes and viewpoints of the members of the society in question- these change over generations, and have been changing generation by generation since the womens rights movement began.

And I believe you have misunderstood me. "Stepping out of ones element" is not a prerequisite for addressing inequality- it is a prerequisite for advancing in any kind of career. Show me an even playing field, anywhere, and I'll show you where you're wrong.

This is not gatekeeping or victimization. Nobody is preventing women from attending except themselves, and their very attendance is all that is required to balance out the gender ratio that is evidently the problem.

Rather than settling the onus on women to solve this problem we need to recognize that men are part of the issue. We all have to note that we have certain privileges that we did not earn but instead born into. Obviously we all, men and women, should help bring about change. Why wait for someone else to make it when you can help someone else make it?

Neither men or women are going to solve the problem as you're framing it- the next few generations of people will solve it (hopefully). But the only solution for the immediate issue is for women to bite the bullet, step up, and balance the gender ratio. But sure, let's say I was one of the men planning on attending one of these functions. What can I do, personally, to improve the gender ratio for the benefit of women? I could opt to just not attend that function. But, why shouldn't I? What's my motivation for giving up the function for the sake of coddling women I don't even know?

Its not like we had to all wait for slaves to free themselves, we all had to get there together. Why would women have to, by themselves, bear a burden we are all complicit in?

The women in question here are not comparable to slaves, in any way. That said, nobody is suggesting that they have to bear the burden of changing the social climate themselves, but the very idea of making sweeping changes in social structure inside of a single generation without a major life-changing force (eg. war, natural disasters, etc) acting as an impetus for the change is ludicrous.

Remember- the issue stated here is the gender ratio. This is a problem that quite literally only requires warm bodies to solve. The underlying privilege and prejudice will eventually be dispelled over a couple of generations- but only if women get more involved with the field despite discomfort to serve as examples to the subsequent generation.

Every woman who refuses to attend a function she is interested in due to the gender ratio is perpetuating that ratio. Said women harm not only themselves, and not only other women who might be interested in attending said functions, but women in general, as a lack of women in the field who can influence the next generation of children (directly or indirectly) means maintenance of the same status quo that is resulting in the problematic gender ratio in the first place.

thousandin1(1933) Clarified
2 points

This isn't a case of social conditions limiting women- such implies that the locus of control is out of the hands of said women- this is a case of women consciously opting to limit themselves, citing social conditions as their reasoning. At this point it's analogous to a self fulfilling prophecy. The women who might attend such a function and even out the gender ratio refuse to attend the function and even out the gender ratio because they don't like the gender ratio. If all of the women who might want to attend such a function refuse to do so until the gender ratio is closer, the gender ratio will never be closer. Advancement of any kind involves stepping out of ones element...

Basically, they're all waiting for someone else to step up, and blaming the world when it doesn't happen.

thousandin1(1933) Clarified
1 point

Even with human beings you could say, if our eyes are covered and we wish to create an intricate work of art the first thing we would do is remove the darkness so we have light because we otherwise cannot recreate such a vision.

Of course, because there is no such thing as a blind painter or a deaf composer.

thousandin1(1933) Clarified
1 point

Fair point but if this "gay dude" believes in something (religion) that is responsible for the majority of persecution of "gay dudes" and is fundamentally against "gay dudes" then this "gay dude" is a bit of a twat. As a gay person, to me religion means oppression.

But is the religion really responsible? You don't believe the abrahamic god exists, so you acknowledge these are creations of man; the anti-gay aspects in a religion are used as a tool to justify and perpetuate an evil form of bigotry that existed long before religions were concocted to push them. A tool that's been frighteningly effective at it's job- but a created tool nonetheless.

I understand your stance on the matter more than I think you appreciate, but I really don't think you have the perspective to look down on them en masse this way. Remember that gay christians are far from the only christians. Something about that mythos is extremely compelling to a certain mindset in a way that you and I can't really grasp, but can only come to know in a diluted vicarious way through extended time spent in the company of "good examples" of the religion in question. It's historically been compelling enough for people to do all manner of things for, which is one of the very reasons it can be called evil and even frightening.

No but it still should be very important to them. If you don't care about avoiding persecution and having your rights then you are a moron.

I don't entirely disagree with you there, but 1) don't you already consider those who believe in Christianity to be morons anyway? And, 2) Isn't it possible to have a personal system of priorities that does not place 'avoiding persecution' at the number 1 spot?

A black person would not support something that is prejudice against them, even if racial equality wasn't their number one priority.

Many black police officers would disagree with you, amongst numerous other professional examples alone. There are even a small minority of black people who genuinely believe themselves to be of an inferior race, who strive to be more "white." I could go on.

That's totally different. Feminism and being a lesbian do not conflict at all. If anything they complement each other. Gay and Christian doesn't go well together at all. A gay Christian is like a Jew being a Nazi.

Wikipedia Category:Jewish Nazi collaborators.

Just because they are supposedly gay friendly doesn't mean they actually believe in equal rights for gays, for example gay marriage. It simply means they accept and tolerate gays. There's a bit of a difference.

Oh, not all of them, but some of them do. In many cases decisions like these aren't really in the hands of the local church itself, but are controlled by an organized denomination. Making these changes in many cases would require splitting from the denomination, which often means a loss of an important source of funding, as well as a loss of membership such that many churches could not sustain themselves.

That said, it has happened. The same site also has a section for christian gay-affirming denominations; some are new, having split off from an older denomination with sufficient members and capital to survive, some are older ones that have officially adopted the stance. Gay marriages are conducted by most of these (where legal, anyway), and membership in the clergy (professional in those where such exists) is available to gay members, etc etc.

The religious are especially though.

No arguments there.

I am judging them differently but in a positive way. As they are gay I consider them to be above religion and I expect more from them than I do from your average Christian ratbag.

Therein lies the problem; you're labeling them as unacceptable because of your stereotypical assumptions regarding your own sexual orientation. This statement means that you have a positive bias towards gays, considering them better in some ways than those with differing sexual orientations. Further, you have a negative bias towards these gays because they fail to meet your standards. It's wrong for exactly the same reason that guys using degrading female slurs to denigrate another guy that is perceived as feminine or insufficiently masculine is wrong.

So? That was then and now is now. It's hardly uncommon for people at this age to feel like they are one thing and then realize they are actually something else.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, I was just confused. If you had mentioned that you used to feel that way but no longer do I would understand. I wasn't objecting to the concept, I simply thought that I was mistaken, that's all.

thousandin1(1933) Clarified
1 point

major link fail, and somebody voted me before I could edit it.

list of gay-friendly christian churches in England

thousandin1(1933) Clarified
2 points

Basically, your sense of aesthetics is at least in part shaped by the world around you, and the opinions of those close to you. If the normal color of the sky was green, we'd consider a clear green sky to be beautiful in the same way we consider a clear blue sky to be beautiful.

In other words, any arrangement of characteristics on a planet that intelligent life with a sense of aesthetics arose on would yield a high proportion of individuals who see beauty in said arrangement. As such, this doesn't really constitute an argument for theism in favor of atheism.

thousandin1(1933) Clarified
2 points

Well even if they do have enough on their plate already it's not as if I'm harassing any of them for it or giving them a harder time.

Your posting here seems to be rather loaded otherwise- though I'll concede you aren't likely to be (indirectly) harassing a very large number of gay christians given the membership of this site. So why should they prioritize the LGBT community above all else? Why do they 'owe' loyalty to said community. A gay dude isn't just a gay dude- he might also be a liberal or conservative, a theist or atheist, etc etc. I object to it for the same reason that I object to the term 'alternative lifestyle' used to describe gay individuals. Sexual orientation does not define a persons lifestyle- it is simply an aspect of it. Simply because an individual is gay, does not necessarily mean gay rights should be their number one priority. A feminist lesbian, for example, may well put women's issues ahead of gay issue's. She isn't betraying anyone by doing so.

They are wasting their time trying to reform Christian view on us because Christians will always be biggots.

Really? Here's a [list of gay-friendly christian churches in England]. Doesn't seem like a waste of time giving the impact it's having, in practice.

I'll agree that Christians will always be bigots- but only as an extension of the fact that everybody is bigoted in some way.

I'm not discriminating on them for their sexuality I am discriminating against them for being disloyal to our cause. I could never discriminate against someone for their sexuality as I know how it hurts.

The reasoning behind it is immaterial. You are judging these gays differently than other gays due to their religion. Reasoning aside, that is religious discrimination. You are judging these christians differently than other christians due to their sexual orientation. Reasoning aside, that is discrimination based on sexual orientation. It's no more valid than discriminating against black people, not because they are black, but because they are statistically convicted of more crimes. The effect is the same.

Also I am not at all bisexual, I am completely gay and would be a solid 6 on that scale.

I could have sworn you said at one point that you were bisexual- my apologies there, I may have been thinking of someone else.

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Winning Position: Good arguments for other side
Winning Position: Dissociative Identity Disorder, Personhood, and Rights.
Winning Position: Should there be a points threshold for voting?
Winning Position: To Christians who believe homosexuality is a choice- A challenge.
Winning Position: A peek into the extremes of radical feminism

About Me


"I feed the trolls here. I'm sorry, some of them are too funny to just ignore!"

Biographical Information
Name: Kevin Murray
Gender: Male
Age: 34
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Independent
Country: United States
Religion: Agnostic
Education: College Grad

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here