Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
The "should we put an actress category" argument on Wikipedia
The argument itself seems pretty reasonable to me.
What irritates me are the arguments most of the "oppose actress category" group are using. While there are some reasonable opponents, the majority seem to be using "It's not good to categorize people like that it's sexist and bad"
Excuse me, but isn't the purpose of a category to...uh, categorize people? And how is it sexist? It is objective fact, for Arceus' sake! It is about as sexist as "Spanish soccer players" or "Belgian chessmasters". Additionally, I'm pretty sure that most of the people at Wikipedia aren't utterly misogynistic douchebags (and if they were it doesn't show), so I seriously doubt that they're splitting to show that "ZOMG WOMEN ARE INFERIOR"
...Augh, why do I bother with these people? These are the same idiots who think that separate male and female public toilets is a sexist ideal.
tl;dr Why Tumblr would-be politicians should never become Wikipedia editors
Comments
Eh, there's really no good reason for a split, IMO.
Oh come on, that is a terrible analogy.
I'm against the idea, mainly because I don't see the point. The whole categorisation thing is designed to meaningfully differentiate people based on who they are and what they do, and these days there's no real reason to bring a person's sex or gender into the equation, is there?
Well, for what it's worth, don't the Oscars differentiate between "best actor" and "best actress"?
They do, yes. Doesn't mean Wikipedia has to.
Yeah, those are some pretty good arguments against it
The thing is that I really don't think bringing up LOL SEXISMS is a good way to argue against it. It seems like a blatant appeal to guilt and appeal to emotion to me.
> The whole categorisation thing is designed to meaningfully differentiate people based on who they are and what they do, and these days there's no real reason to bring a person's sex or gender into the equation, is there?
Well, as much as I hate sexism, show business is one sector where gender differentiation is a big thing, in part because of the genders of characters themselves.
Whereas it's justified in, say, the Ocars to have two separate awards based on genre because of the role disparity in the movie business, a list of notable actors doesn't really require this. At best, it's just pretty pointless and at worst has sexist motivation.
I don't understand why this makes a difference. Care to elaborate?
It does boil down to sexism, because there is really no good reason for gender segregation, as a matter of principle. There is not a good reason for separate male and female toilets, either, and I've never seen people who minded unisex bathrooms.
Really, the only field where I can see gender segregation as justified are sports, because women are weaker on average and would most likely end up severely underrepresented in unisex teams.
Biological differences, mang
Which doesn't really mean anything in that regard, unless you think girls have cooties or something like that.
They don't?
Anyway, the best reason to have gender divided toilets is have you ever been to a public men's restroom geez there appears to be some confusion about toilet etiquette.
Hence why public toilets are terrible and suck forever.
It's common for men to pee in the toilets instead of urinals
Sometimes pee gets on the seat
Women pee sitting down
Do the math.
That they do, man. That they do.
Hm, this actually makes sense.
And heh, this whole discussion reminds me of another thing from high school.
We had two changing rooms for PE, which weren't strictly divided as a "male" and "female" room, but both the girls and the boys had to pick their own among the two. Well, one of them was relatively decent, while the other one sucked hard - it had moisty walls, a huge gaping hole in the ceiling, leaking pipes and a broken toilet with piss constantly leaking from it (lol eastern europe).
Naturally, at the beginning of the first year the girls got the good one while the guys got the crappy one. At the beginning of the third year we got sick of it and decided to try to usurp the good changing room by occupying it before the girls did. The girls were pissed when they saw that, but a good number of them just entered the good room and proceeded changing clothes just as if we weren't there. We had to move back to our shitty room after that particular PE class, but you can imagine how would a bunch of horny 17-year olds react to that. It was glorious, and a pity that it didn't happen more often.
Dude. That is the weakest argument I have heard yet.
Some men sometimes pee on the seat.
Even when they do, there's usually toilet paper right there. Pretty sure it shouldn't be too hard to wipe down the toilet seat. As gross as that is.
Or you could like. Encourage men to not piss on the seat. Which just seems like common decency anyway, really.
It depends, really. In this case, I don't think it applies. "Actress" is simply stating "hey, this person acts and is a woman", in the same way as "actor" is simply stating "hey, this person acts and is a man".
When gender segregation is boiled down to something as minor as that...
Woe be he who underestimates the laziness of men.
>public restrooms
>common decency
This also makes sense.
Have you people even been to a public restroom?
These are places where people spraypaint things like "SHITFUCK" and "I HAV SMALL WEENOR"
I've been to public restrooms circa three thousand times.
Is there somebody who hasn't been to one, honestly?
That seems like an argument for avoiding public bathrooms altogether, not segregating them by gender.
^ I've only been to a public restroom to be sick.
University toilets are awesome though. I love reading all the arguments on the walls.
Like that wasn't obvious to everyone ever
Then I do not understand why you are using this as a reason for segregating them by gender.
Public restrooms as a whole are pretty bad, but unisex restrooms would be even worse. For women, at least.
Also harassment cases would skyrocket because lol horny men
You aware that men have to sit down in public bathrooms too, yes? Not all of the time, but they still do.
I hereby propose that we ban men from men's bathrooms, because some men pee on toilet seats when some other men need to sit on them and that's gross and not easily solvable by either discouraging people from peeing on the seats or wiping the toilet seat down.
Again, that is the sort of thing that you should discourage men from doing, rather than using it as a reason to make two separate bathrooms.
And now that I think about it, wouldn't harassment cases also skyrocket because lol horny women?
>Eelektross: Reflect
It just occurs to you that you are starting an internet argument about pissing rooms.
>ability to follow reasonable orders
>people in public restrooms
...Are you serious?
Which is another horrible argument. Under that same logic, any free interaction of women and men in relatively secluded places ought to be avoided because of risk of rape.
And public toilets sucking are an unfortunate fact of life that you'll have to deal with, and will eventually get used to. Just like paying taxes.