(March 7, 2011 at 11:11 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: The truth is that there is first a level of what can possibly be done by a being, which is easy to discriminate along the lines of. The second level is that which a being does. This is merit... and I would agree that it is often a much better guide to people. But to ignore the first level is to do a disservice to future talent that can be trained to be much more potent than anything current in favor of dogs whose days are done.
The flaw in judging people based on preconceived notions is that even if those notions are correct about the group they may not be correct about the individual. You are better off judging on individual merit. I don't see anything gained by considering weather the average male is stronger than the average female. Hire the strongest person regardless of gender. Or religion, or orientation, or whatever.
Quote:These discriminations even apply to such intellectual tasks as chess. For all the arguments I hear that women and men are similar intellectually, I find that the best among the female chess players ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polgár ) is also arm and leg and head above the rest of her sex, and has been training to be so for her entire life. Note, i do not use this to argue the point that women are not intelligent... i use this to clarify my spite to the sacrosanct 'equality' that is lobbied for between men and women. I do not believe in it, any more than I would believe that all of the same gender are equals (they are not, as i should hope Polgar provides evidence).
The equality between men and women is equal rights, not equal abilities. Battles over equality in employment may have blurred that distinction a bit, but, obviously men and women are not equal in all ways.
