Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur
I'm going to take this one line at a time.
I disagree. A targeted event by it's very nature is discriminatory
Yes.
There's no difference. Both the women's and Men's league discriminate as to whom they allow to play.
Again, yes it is discriminatory.
Anytime you exclude a group, you are discriminating.
That's like stating that it's OK for girls to be in high school but not take advanced calculus.
When someone is not allowed to do what another is allowed to do, due to a trait, then it is discrimination.
Now, that being said, we discriminate all the time, and many times for good reason. Not allowing someone to run a mill because they have not been trained to run it safely is a good reason to discriminate. To not allow a person to run a mill because she is female is NOT a good reason.
Truthfully, I believe that the library saw a statistic (boys literacy drops during summer vacation) and tried to address that without looking at the bigger picture and is discriminatory nature.
JM(NS)HO
|
Perhaps the issue here is the difference between the technical definition of the word "discriminate" - to note or observe a difference - and it's accepted sociopolitical meaning - To systematically treat a group in a negative manor. Sure, there are many examples of discrimination per the first definition... That's something we all do every day. The second difference is where there are significant issues, and, in fact, is an area where our country is currently experiencing some strong opinions and disagreements (for reference, Google anything regarding private businesses refusing to service gay weddings... I predict this is something that will end up before the supreme court in the next 5 years).
Personally, I don't see this particular instance as the sociopolitical sort of discrimination. They created a targeted class. There's no difference between this class an, for example, the Boy Scouts. Or the Girl Scouts. Or an all girls Catholic school, or an all boys military prep school. In each situation, the organization is targeting their efforts to provide a unique (and hopefully beneficial) experience for the community, one that they feel could not be delivered as effectively if the experience was opened to a wider audience. As the Supreme Court has previously ruled (For example, see Boy Scouts of America vs Dale, even if this is one case where I don't think the Boy Scouts were in the right), this is perfectly legal.
Let's face it... As a society, we have a bad history with discrimination. We discriminated against people based on both race and gender for a long time. We all know that our country was founded on the premise of white, male, land owners having the final say. We've come a long way since then. But because of that history, we, as a culture, have almost become oversensitized to it. We see anything that might, in some way, indicate a return to that way of life, and we label it. We push it forward as a Very Bad Thing and shame anyone who might speak a thought that isn't totally against it. Instead, we should be trying to avoid such sociopolitically charged words in order to have a civil discussion that doesn't paint anyone into a corner.
I'll leave you with a passing thought... The team I mentor, the team I've worked with for the past 9 years, is an all girls teams. They come from an all girls school, and have as part of their mission statement the desire to promote girls in STEM. It's something I strongly believe in. Is my team and it's school discriminating?