Harvard Commits to Ban on Single-Sex Organizations, But Will Allow 'Gender-Focused' Female Groups - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=eirexe;53114586]makes sense[/QUOTE] it really doesn't, either allow both or allow none. giving leeway for one sort and not the other is nothing short of counter-productive.

Double standard much?

I dont know anyone could respect a high level college to blatantly pull this sexist shit. Theres no defending this.

[QUOTE=Robber;53114739]So now they start discriminating against a different group? Is this supposed to be some kind of revenge or something?[/QUOTE] Pretty much, that's essentially what the progressive movement is now, a bunch of minority activism groups that essentially just want revenge and special treatment. It's not even a small minority like people keep claiming because they're clearly influencing major institutions. They're completely dropped the whole equality shtick in any meaningful way and are just demanding special treatment.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;53115249]Pretty much, that's essentially what the progressive movement is now, a bunch of minority activism groups that essentially just want revenge and special treatment. It's not even a small minority like people keep claiming because they're clearly influencing major institutions. They're completely dropped the whole equality shtick in any meaningful way and are just demanding special treatment.[/QUOTE] That's a pretty unfair generalization in a thread about people facing unfair discrimation!

[QUOTE=Ax3l;53114604]No. It really does not. It's unfair gender discrimination. If this was the opposite situation there would be an outcry, calling everyone involved sexist supporters of the "patriarchy". We live in a century where a lot of people are under the impression that men can't be targets of sexism and are always in power and never vulnerable. It's genuinely sickening every time I hear about male victims of abuse get ridiculed and made fun of. Like, what the fuck?[/QUOTE] This post is quite funny because patriarchy is exactly what reinforces the idea that "men can't be targets of sexism and are always in power and never vulnerable", and also makes people ridicule and make fun of male victims of abuse.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;53115374]This post is quite funny because patriarchy is exactly what reinforces the idea that "men can't be targets of sexism and are always in power and never vulnerable", and also makes people ridicule and make fun of male victims of abuse.[/QUOTE] Can you back this claim up somehow? "Men can't be targets of sexism and are always in power and never vulnerable" seems exactly like what many vocal self proclaimed feminists I've met believe. I agree that there are social constructs at play that reinforces this idea but I don't think they stem from the ordinary "suck it up" macho stuff.

Isn't this something people here were supposed to like? I was under the impression after the articles about segregated dorms black students wanted that people appreciated efforts to force students together.

[QUOTE=01271;53115454]Isn't this something people here were supposed to like? I was under the impression after the articles about segregated dorms black students wanted that people appreciated efforts to force students together.[/QUOTE] I get the impression you're ignoring context to try and make a zinger.

[QUOTE=01271;53115454]Isn't this something people here were supposed to like? I was under the impression after the articles about segregated dorms black students wanted that people appreciated efforts to force students together.[/QUOTE] Assuming you mean Facepunch: For a gaming forum Facepunch surprisingly has a good track record of moderate political views and those leaning to far right or left are hastily corrected but there still is the minute population of dialectic posters who keep the forum goers sharp. It's an outlier on the internet but a good one at that. Assuming you mean Harvard and why students protested: politics is all fun and games until you get exactly what you want.

[QUOTE=maeZtro;53115401]Can you back this claim up somehow? "Men can't be targets of sexism and are always in power and never vulnerable" seems exactly like what many vocal self proclaimed feminists I've met believe. I agree that there are social constructs at play that reinforces this idea but I don't think they stem from the ordinary "suck it up" macho stuff.[/QUOTE] patriarchy = men in power and never vulnerable using this excuse for their own sexism = propagating the idea that men are powerful/invulnerable = propagating patriarchy therefore feminists/egalitarians that do not believe males can be subject to sexism are simply undermining their own case by supporting what they're fighting patriarchy also means men in power, and therefore cannot be harmed; and thus unable to be discriminated against/invulnerable i.e.: "impossible to rape a man" we all know that's horseshit tho

[QUOTE=01271;53115454]Isn't this something people here were supposed to like? I was under the impression after the articles about segregated dorms black students wanted that people appreciated efforts to force students together.[/QUOTE] Not seeing anyone here complaining about removing sex segregated groups, just the uneven treatment between the two where 1 group receives far more leeway.

If that's the case just refer to the article about the previous ban. [quote]Formed in response to the recommendations of a University-wide report on sexual assault prevention, the policy mirrors an idea that Khurana floated at a behind-closed-doors meeting with final club leadership in April. While administrators have criticized single-gender social clubs, particularly male final clubs, for statistics purportedly linking them with an elevated risk of sexual assault, Faust and Khurana’s messages focused primarily on the membership selection practices of unrecognized single gender groups.[/quote] The dudes are the ones with the bad clubs and they rape a lot so they get shown the door first. It's kinda unfair to women because they didn't do the bad things as much but like if your kids are fighting in the back seat because billy is hitting sally with his toys, now nobody gets the toy.

-snip-

[QUOTE=eirexe;53115914]there is absolutely no sexism in this decision[/QUOTE] I want to see your reasoning for this opinion.

[QUOTE=eirexe;53115914]there is absolutely no sexism in this decision[/QUOTE] are you actually gonna defend your opinion or are you gonna be a hypocrite, who have called out others for this same exact behaviour?

[QUOTE=eirexe;53114586]makes sense[/QUOTE] Am I the only person that read this as sarcasm? [editline]7th February 2018[/editline] Apparently he wasn't sarcastic and actually believed that

[QUOTE=01271;53115876] The dudes are the ones with the bad clubs and they rape a lot so they get shown the door first. It's kinda unfair to women because they didn't do the bad things as much but like if your kids are fighting in the back seat because billy is hitting sally with his toys, now nobody gets the toy.[/QUOTE] Doesn't justify discrimination.

[QUOTE=eirexe;53115914]-snip-[/QUOTE] I like how you made a godawful post, disappear when people ask you to back up your position, then return later to essentially make the same shitty post with yet again no justification, and then just snip your posts as if that absolves you of the shit you've been posting.

My angle on things is "anyone can apply but everyone get the same test" lets take the army for example, a hot topic on the front of gender equality. Anyone can apply to join the army, doesn't matter who you are or what you are or what you think you are, you can apply and will never be automatically rejected. But if you fail to match up to the physical, educational or psychological requirements then sorry but you are not gonna be a soldier. If a buff as fuck, mentally stable trans person from whatever to whatever signs up and aces all the tests well come the fuck in, here's your rifle there are the bad guys, give 'em hell! In an ideal world we'd hire people for what they can do, not who they are. Sure you might be a straight, white male but if you can't pass the bleep test you ain't gettin' in the police. sorry lad but git gud, train harder and come back next time. Same goes for anyone. As far as I am concerned, giving priority to anyone based on the colour of their skin or sexual orientation or basically anything besides their ability to do the job at hand is discrimination. Those born to less advantaged or demographics areas might be unfortunate but I feel that's a failure on the state as opposed to the employer. The state should help those with poor backgrounds, not the institutions who need good employees to functions.

[QUOTE=maeZtro;53115401]Can you back this claim up somehow? "Men can't be targets of sexism and are always in power and never vulnerable" seems exactly like what many vocal self proclaimed feminists I've met believe. I agree that there are social constructs at play that reinforces this idea but I don't think they stem from the ordinary "suck it up" macho stuff.[/QUOTE] It's both. It is the ordinary "suck it up macho stuff," it's just that those people you're referring to also believe in that "suck it up macho stuff." The major focus of feminist philosophy and activism is, as the name implies, problems with the way society treats women. This is not to be any way critical of that, women face a lot of injustices in society even today. But again, the focus is on addressing societal problems specifically regarding women. Problems with the way men are seen and treated by society are much less discussed and when they are it's almost always only in how they relate to problems that women face. And because of this, people who subscribe to this philosophy make a lot of progress with how they see women, but significantly less with how they see men. So in other words, these people that you're referring to probably think that "Men can't be targets of sexism and are always in power and never vulnerable" [i]because[/i] they still hold a lot of patriarchal views about how men are or should be (or "suck it up macho stuff" as you put it) because that's what society teaches them to believe and they've never really challenged that like they have with the way they've been taught to think about women.

[QUOTE=Cliff2;53116025]Doesn't justify discrimination.[/QUOTE] I mean maybe the issue is more complex? Nobody really addressed the point that these fraternities have a high degree of sexual assaults? or maybe it's because feminists hate men, I'm sure this isn't a weird echo chamber groupthink thing happening.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53116657]I mean maybe the issue is more complex? Nobody really addressed the point that these fraternities have a high degree of sexual assaults? or maybe it's because feminists hate men, I'm sure this isn't a weird echo chamber groupthink thing happening.[/QUOTE] Because whether or not they have that issue doesn't justify discrimination against their gender. Offer the same grace period to both, or neither. I've seen each of you understand that statistics on a group as a whole does not justify discrimination in regards to race, and yet here you've completely forgotten that when it regards sex.

[QUOTE=Cliff2;53116673]Because whether or not they have that issue doesn't justify discrimination against their gender. Offer the same grace period to both, or neither. I've seen each of you understand that statistics on a group as a whole does not justify discrimination in regards to race, and yet here you've completely forgotten that when it regards sex.[/QUOTE] Dudes are fine man, It's the fraternities (and to some extent sororities) that are taking a hit. even so the fraternities will be fine if they open themselves up to be gender neutral

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53114765]'Discrimination' is to favor (sometimes, defined as 'unjustly' favoring) certain groups over others on the grounds of sex, race, etc. and that's certainly what's going on here I'm not saying this is right, or that the male clubs shouldn't be granted the same 3-5 year period to move towards inclusiveness that the female clubs get. This is an attempt at "balancing the books" and you may very well think it's misguided, but please understand that the perspective it's coming from is not one of spite towards men for the sake of revenge, but one that acknowledges their clubs as having enjoyed higher social status and less discrimination throughout their history. Again, it might be a heavy-handed, counter-productive move, but if you want to address it, make your argument stronger by understanding what the move is and where it's coming from.[/QUOTE] you don't learn from history by repeating its mistakes.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53116684]Dudes are fine man, It's the fraternities (and to some extent sororities) that are taking a hit. even so the fraternities will be fine if they open themselves up to be gender neutral[/QUOTE] "Dudes" aren't fine if [i]the groups exclusively for men[/i] are systematically disadvantaged compared to [i]the groups exclusively for women.[/i]

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53114911]I'm sorry, but it sounds like you think I'm disagreeing with you, when I literally started that post by saying that this [B]is[/B] discrimination. Understanding the motives and grievances of the people behind this doesn't mean you are agreeing with them. You can put yourself in their place without validating their beliefs. All I'm saying is that people take a moment to look at the perspective behind this, and form arguments based on that. You can't hope to solve a problem you don't understand.[/QUOTE] My comment was a bit poorly worded. The first sentence wasn't meant to be to referring to your statement directly, but more aimed at the general problem. I should have excluded it altogether tbh.

I wonder when a title IX complaint is going to be filed over this. I'd be surprised if the person writing this policy ran it past their legal department (ironic considering that it's.. y'now.. Harvard.. one of the most prestigious laws schools in the world).

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;53117025]I wonder when a title IX complaint is going to be filed over this. I'd be surprised if the person writing this policy ran it past their legal department (ironic considering that it's.. y'now.. Harvard.. one of the most prestigious laws schools in the world).[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if that would go anywhere since title ix covers education and fraternities are a extra curricular group.