by 
Discrimination has gotten to be a dirty word in modern society, and it’s a pity too, because there was a time where being a person of discriminating tastes was a good thing.
You see, to discriminate basically means that you have made a choice based on a given set of criteria. We’ve taken this word and applied it to race, sex and creed and made it into a bad word when it doesn’t have to be that way.
You see, no one deserves to have the right to be a chorus teacher just because of a specific class of person that they are. They get to be a chorus teacher because they can teach music– we hope! The jury is still out on my 10th and 11th grade teacher.
You don’t get to be a blind art teacher, an English professor that only knows Spanish, or a shop teacher that does not have hands– especially if he didn’t start out that way.
Hopefully, we’ve moved passed the discrimination that looks at people as who they are and starts to look at them for their qualifications, their actions, etc.
This all came up because I said that based on a persons actions or stated preferences we could choose to not let them have specific jobs teaching certain children. My statement was that I would not have lesbian gym teachers in the locker room– and my reasoning for it was quite simply that if a person has a stated attraction to the same sex then it is bad for the teacher and bad for the students to have that woman in the locker room where teens have to change and shower.
Now, there was some discussion in regards to pedophilia and the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. I think that this is a red herring, but it could be because when I look at this topic I’m thinking of high school teachers primarily and not young children.
Take these things into account:
- We currently have an epidemic of school teachers having sex with under-aged children (women having sex with young boys being the ones getting most of the attention with probably the same amount of men, but also there are many female on female cases as well).
- 16-18 year old teens can look like they are 20 years old, so the whole “they are children” and I can’t be physically effected by looking at them does not necessarily carry a lot of weight.
- Regardless, since the person is an authority figure there is no good reason to have them in the same room. It’s akin to sexual harassment.
- Lastly, since you would not have a female coach in the same locker room as the boys showering and changing, you would not have a man that has stated that he is attracted to men in the same room. It’s all about sex, it’s not about anatomy.
Again, I think that all people discriminate. You wouldn’t want me fixing your car, cooking a gourmet meal, or playing a French Horn solo, but there are things that I do well. In the same way, there are different things that people can do and should do and there are others that, because of who they are or what they do, have limited their options.
I’m having a difficult time trying to figure out what the point of this post is. But I’m bored, so I’ll bite.
“…with probably the same amount of men, but also there are many female on female cases as well.”
Statistics, statistics, statistics. Where on earth are your statistics to back up your claims? (you ask why I keep coming back- this is the reason- to make you back up some of your more outrageous claims).
“16-18 year old teens can look like they are 20 years old, so the whole “they are children” and I can’t be physically effected by looking at them does not necessarily carry a lot of weight”
Yeah, and this isn’t just a homo issue, though your veiled attempt is to do just that. This whole locker room thing is just getting old. I’ve checked with six local high schools so far, and gym teachers are NOT in the changing areas with the students, boys or girls. I’ve been told by my administrators and gym teachers that this has become the norm throughout the country. So why continue to bark up this tree? (and then you wonder why you have the “trolls” stopping in).
Actually, I think I have found the point of this: Discrimination is fine and dandy as long as it is in regards to a person’s sexual orientation. Wow, this is indeed and important post. I’ll totally agree with this as long as I can discriminate against the Christians.
Musicguy self comment check to avoid censorship:
respectful…check
no name calling…check
no making fun of religions beliefs…check
no belittling…check
playing nice in “Min’s house”…check
I had to read this three times and I’m still not sure of the logic of it. There is a HUGE differance between “pedophilia” and “homosexuality”. I admit to being older, but I can remember my gym teachers in high school as both being homosexual. They were VERY qualified to teach gym and both ladies were very nice. They didn’t come into the locker room to watch us change our clothes or to watch us shower. If you base this on qualifications, the whole sexual orientation
thing flies in the face of logic. If you simply do not want your children exposed to people who do not share 100% of your values, you and your children will have a very narrow road to walk down. If you base this on “your” concept of qualifications, the six year old in the news today who won a race without legs had no “right” to win, with the fact that he had “limited their options”.
I think that you are right in the fact that ANYONE in a position of power or authority who misuses that power or authority to harm anyone and ESPECIALLY children, should not hold said position. I can not but think of all the scandals concerning the priests from the Catholic churches around the world, doctors, and every day in the work force across the world,(think sweat shops), and even in the highest offices in our own government.
Perhaps this was a poorly executed post, or I just am seeing things from the wrong perspective. Wouldn’t be the first time! 🙂
What I’m trying to communicate is that there are valid reasons to discriminate and that simply labeling something discrimination doesn’t make it wrong.
I don’t have a problem with people having differing views from me to a point– there’s obviously always lines in there, and it obviously has to deal with whether or not said views are enforced (obviously not a phys ed class unless, somehow, they’re getting into the realm of spirituality with some type of yoga or something). I know some people have had problems with gym classes and dancing, but I’m on the fence there and probably would not oppose it unless it was all slow dancing, but I digress.
I’m not sure what “my” concept of qualifications are. I don’t know how your example of a race applies? Certainly he was qualified to win the race because they accepted entrants that did not have legs. But how can a person that cannot see judge a painting? Feeling the canvas? I understand that a blind person may paint, to some extent, and maybe, to a limited extent, they could teach other blind people to paint, but how can they express depth of field, framing a photo from an experiential point of view rather than simply from the theoretical?
Perhaps instead of a pure “can do, can’t do” there’s degrees of ability where you could have a blind person teach art, but that would be down on the ladder from someone who can actually paint or draw. Maybe it should be based on the laws of scarcity. Likewise, it’s not a problem to have a homosexual phys ed teacher, but it certainly wouldn’t be my first choice because of the attraction factor and the possibility of having them in the shower room. I mean, there were days when our male coach was sick, and the female teacher was the only one there was. She stayed out of the locker room (or yelled cover when she came in) and this was somewhat acceptable. It definitely wasn’t ideal.
And that’s I guess my point (which isn’t a hard one) is that we are constantly discriminating in that we try to choose the best one for the job, and in many cases that means that we have to take people’s actions and statements into account when choosing who will be in a position– especially in a position of authority over children.
Does that make any sense?
Ok, that makes more sense now.
If we are talking about job qualifications, then you are correct: we have to discriminate somewhat, although I really don’t think that’s the correct word to use. We wouldn’t hire the blind art teacher to teach painting (although he’d be very well suited for sculpture), and we wouldn’t have the chemist to teach music.
However, in both of the aforementioned cases, those people wouldn’t necessarily possess the qualifications needed to teach those things- an artist eye and a musical ear, so it really wouldn’t be discrimination.
An issue develops when you deny a person employment (or whatever), even though they DO possess all the necessary qualifications for the job because you don’t happen to like their creed, skin color, or with whom they sleep.
If that is indeed what you are suggesting, Min, I have to categorically disagree with you. Your post seems to start out with job qualifications, and then venture into an entirely different realm (I don’t want to say moral fiber, but that’s the only thing that comes to mind).
That’s a really hard sell, and also a terribly slippery slope. My questions become: where does it end? Who fits into your “master plan” here? Where does your discrimination end and who is safe?
I think it’s really the wording that got me hung up on this topic. My mind’s definition (being choosy) is what I think of, when the word’s become purely something that reflects on being choosy over the wrong things. Same thing with prejudice. It’s not necessarily a bad word, but it’s been made one.
And now I’m hung up.
Yoga is a very good form of exercise and the spirituality of it can be whatever you make of it. The idea of yoga is to breathe properly, release tensions and clear your mind of stress. You do not have to practice “Indian Philosophy” to practice yoga. Dancing is also a good way to get your heart rate up (fast dancing) and slow dancing teaches poise and fluid movement.
I thought my example of the race was spot on.
I think maybe we are talking apples and oranges here.
I do start to wonder where concern stops and a phobia starts.
I have no problem with meditation or stretching– not having done any kind of study into it or any practice in it I’m not qualified to say anything about it other than my one experience with it where my mom wanted me to think Bible verses when my health class hummed. So, I guess you should take that offhand comment with a grain of salt.
As I said, I wouldn’t oppose dancing unless it was all slow dancing, and by that I mean the close together, back and forth, with nothing but being up against a girl with sweatpants on (not exactly modest for a teen guy with hormones). Let’s just say that my problem with that is personal experience. It’s hard to remove the sexual component when it comes to slow dancing. Though my wife and I’ve actually talked about getting into some kind of ball room dancing for the exercise.
Can you explain your race example more? I mean, trying to look at it differently, the thing I can see is similar is that races traditionally just had people that could run, and now they have all sorts of people in it. And they usually have different categories of racing. But then there are also races that are specifically for certain people.
I guess I would say that, personally, I’m not against people saying “this race is just for runners” or “this race is just for cancer survivors” or “this race is just for church members” because of the Freedom of Assembly. Where I start having a problem is when people outside the qualifications believe they have a right to be included in the group because of who they are, what they look like, etc.
I think that we can go so far in trying to force equality that we have negative impacts: “I got this job just because I’m black– I wouldn’t have got it if they went for the more qualified person.”
“I think that we can go so far in trying to force equality that we have negative impacts: “I got this job just because I’m black– I wouldn’t have got it if they went for the more qualified person.””
Forcing equality can be very harmful and cause detriment even when somebody *is* qualified for the job/etc. Sean works in law enforcement and not only qualified on all of his exams, but was #1 in his “class,” however, the dept. he works for also uses affirmative action in their hiring process and Sean is one of only three officers of Asian descent on the *entire* force. Obviously Sean knows that he is a good officer & well qualified, but he gets to question if his qualification were the sole reason of his hire, and later on, the only reason for his (God willing) promotion. This is certainly not a great feeling to have and Sean has called it the most blatant racism he has ever experienced. Discernment in the hiring process is most certainly important, but this only works when people are chosen/not chosen for the right or appropriate reasons.