I dislike being partially quoted when it hides context. The capitalized, "THAT", is an accent to refer to what you removed and is intentionally attempting to misplace my intended accent.Skip wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 3:04 pmThe same reason it's all right for you to judge "those women" - whoever they are, wherever they are, whatever they actually said about anything - for their judgment: because everybody judges everybody else and nobody wants to be judged by others.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 8:40 am It is irrelevant THAT those women.... Why is it alright to dictate that society's men should not JUDGE women for their choices while it IS still alright to JUDGE men for it.
Don't try turning tables here. I defend peoples right to be different and dress as they like ....but under the same limitations for all people equally as well,. not to have special exemptions for some CULTURALLY defined arrogance of superiority.
That is, if we are discussing the front lines of war, the soldier is expected to wear the uniform common to all others in context. As such, if I were to ask you it appropriate that the freedom of expression is still appropriate here, you are implying it more appropriate that the soldier who is female should uniquely be disqualified from this requirement.
Actually it is. For instance, when making laws, if it is generalized to apply to all people, it resolves the interpretation that such rules are not biasing people. In contrast, like my own country's tendency to do, making laws that LIST which groups of people are caveated for discrimination, it SPECIFIES a set of stereotypes exist by the creators of such laws with clear logical proof of their hate and discrimination.If that's an issue, it's unresolveable.THAT is the issue.
Rule example for restaurant: All people, male or female, must wear pants and flat shooes, not skirts or high heels!
I used this actual real example for a place I worked at that was here in Canada but owned and operated by an American company. I noticed that contrary to the rule, the girls (teens), intentionally would bring and put on skirts and high heels to exploit the nature of those who tip to give more presumably. When they worked without the main management around, they'd switch to them. In contrast, the a restaurant by the same company but owned strictly by a distinct francizing agreement for Canadians elsewhere, did not press this uniformity and in fact is what our system demonstrates in bias because the government here believes in distinct status of peoples' rights based upon their genetics.
We have laws that specify something called "hate crimes" which here do that listing too. As such, for it NOT being generalized to the uniformity of people proves clear and arrogant discrimination.
You separated religious people's excuse for distinction as justified but not those with apparent gender oddities.I'm not sure how you find that obvious, but you're certainly within your right to think so.I was asking if you assume discrete stereotypical beliefs about others. Obviously you do.
The logic is the same. Religion is not superiorly distinct to all other cultural beliefs. If you think it alright in one context, it is just as relevant to other cultural factors because we all think differently about these as signficant.One can assume that, though it's not likely to be true of all the people of whom we choose to believe it. Very often, the men in a culture have far greater choice as to their own self-expression than the women. Indeed, some cultures impose unequal dress requirements and behavioural limits on their members, and the patriarchs of some cultures, when transplanted to a different dominant culture with different rules, feel entitled to keep their old-world stranglehold on their female dependents , while they themselves take full advantage of the freedoms of the new culture. So it's always questionable what garb is freely chosen by the wearer and what garb is forced upon them.'Gender attire' is the cultural definition of behaviors that are based on ones freedom to choose what they wear that expresses something meaningful to the weare just as 'religious attire' is the cultural interpretation of the same for their religious beliefs.
If you restrict the question to religiously significant items worn by an independent adult male, yes, he is expressing something that is important enough to him to make a public statement in his everyday encounters, and in that case, yes, it does tell us something meaningful about his attitudes, priorities and loyalties. If he's putting on a costume for a photo-shoot, that tells us rather less about him. If it's an entertainer putting on a costume, it tells us nothing personal about him.
The situation with western feminine attire is somewhat different, in that most of what people wear is chosen, more or less freely, under the auspices of multi billion dollar fashion industry, in tandem with multi billion dollar industries in other aspects of beauty, all of which benefit greatly, vastly, enormously and obscenely from undermining women's self-esteem and persuading them to emulate a fictitious heterosexual male fantasy of feminine appeal. If enough of them keep doing it, it's the norm and any deviation is noticed - sometimes with approval, sometimes critically. No deep cultural truth here: Girls just want to look pretty for boys. (*sigh* and for other girls and boys want to be attractive to girls and other boys and old men and women and people who haven't decided .... just stay away from the kiddies, all right?)
These attempts by the vast majority of women to conform to a cultural ideal of what men desire in women are, of course, doomed to eternal failure, which means they never stop throwing more money into the bottomless pit of futility and garnering the society's contempt both for the effort and for the failure, so they console themselves by indulging in the other multi-billion dollar industry of making people fat.
While profit and religion are both powerful players in modern society, and while I wouldn't be surprised if churches invested in liposuction clinics and palm oil processing, the psychological mechanism doesn't operate quite the same way in both cases.
What does matter is to whether things are uniform across people. If one thinks exceptions apply, then they are begging some particular peoples' transcendent beliefs are superior to others. If one is permitted to wear a strong religious garment freely [context: uniformed or government supported places], then it shouldn't matter if that person is wearing any other of the same.
Then we are more on the same page. However, note that I have worked in real places that demanded dress codes to intentionally be utilized as a means to discriminate. The particular code regarded wearing 'collars' to a night club. The boss specified to us all in a meeting that this was to permit the bouncers the freedom to exclude natives. I quit right then and there and was the ONLY one who stood up against that, including oddly, one of the Native bouncers!I don't. I think every school, workplace, restaurant, club charitable and sport organization has a right to set a dress code for its members. It should not, however, discriminate by member but by item of clothing.We hypocritically accept it fair to demand restrictions on what one wears that might insult another, such as a Nazi uniform one might choose to go to school in because many believe the opposite no restrictions applies to religious attire and ambiguosly restricted to gender attire choices.
That is: neither boys nor girls, men nor women are allowed to wear a swastika, crucifix, turban, stiletto heels, shredded jeans or leather collar with studs. Both women and men, girls and boys must wear overalls, face masks, safety harness, life jacket, bullet-proof vest, hard hat. Simple.