When is Discrimination ok?

[tragula]

People generally like to hang out with likeminded people who share their perspective on life. Being around people we identify with reinforces our own beliefs and values, and consequently make us feel better about ourselves. And when we are around others who are like us we can relax enough to enjoy ourselves, and talk freely about issues that other people might not understand.

But when is excluding or discriminating against certain types of people in social gatherings, places, or institutions not ok? It happens all the time. And people complain about it all the time. Clearly there are two opposing values that need to be reconciled somehow!

Places and situations where this is an issue:

Men's Clubs, Golf Clubs, Race based Fraternities, Sororities, Women's Centers, Book Clubs, Bachelor Parties, Lesbian Bars, Bathrooms, etc.

And how does all of this apply to MBTI and people's preferences for certain types over others?

I would prefer to explore this issue mainly from a philosophical standpoint! :)

[Philo]

Perhaps when the discrimination stops being a passive thing? For example, when a men's club won't admit an asian male, despite the fact he meets the criteria of the club?

Just tossing out an idea.

[Star]

But when is excluding or discriminating against certain types of people in social gatherings, places, or institutions not ok?

When the group's discrimination favors those who have power and privilege.

[Trolsk]

When the group's discrimination favors those who have power and privilege.
Rather: when the own group's interest is served by excluding other groups -- and due to this is discrimination of doubtful worth when collaboration with other groups is beneficiary.

[Lee]

Discrimination is not inherently bad, we discriminate all the time, every second of our lives is spent discriminating between the sheer mass of information we percieve in the world around us. Discrimination fuelled out of irrational prejudice however is what many consider immoral, which brings us into the totally subjective realm of morality and individual opinions.
I think discrimination fuelled from prejudice is an issue that plagues society, it seems fuelled out of tribal instincts of man which themselves have there roots in a desire to help ones own. During human evolution any person would be almost totally surrounded by family and would seek to do the best for that family, those we look like, sound like, act like, think like are in all likleyhood going to share genes and so it is benificial that we favour those in our interactions. We also find strength in numbers and need to trust our group in order to thrive which again encourages a genetic relatedness between members as a way of maintaining trust and altruism amongst a group, this is because all members of the group have an invested genetic interest in each others survival and success. This created an instinct which encourages us to gather in groups for support, safety and power whichthe members share similar appearance, opinions, character etc. interaction with outside groups must yield sufficiant rewards and is pertaken in a very unemotional business like manner.

This is just some stuff I think is relevent.

I have not covered all types of discrimination or some of the more philisophical points that are relevent, and I will get back to this thread with more of my ramblings later :)

-Lee

[Division56]

My discriminating tastes keep me from shopping at Wal-Mart. Ever.

[tragula]

When the group's discrimination favors those who have power and privilege.

I'm not sure it always has to do with power and privilege.

What if a man wanted to join a book club consisting of all women. Should he be allowed to participate? What if most but not all members would like him to join? What if he were gay, would that make a difference?


Perhaps it all comes down to defining clearly what the purpose of a place or activity is. So, if the purpose of a golf club is to play golf, then they should not be allowed to discriminate by race or gender.

But if the purpose of a golf club is for men to chat with other men while performing an activity, then perhaps they should be permitted to remain men only. (This is hypothetical--not my opinion.)

But if the chatting involves conducting out of office business deals, then women would be professionally handicapped by not being allowed to join...

[songbird36]

I think to make sense of this debate you need to first define some terms Tragula. There is a clear difference in my mind, for example, between "discrimination" and "differentiation".

The former term implies prejudice and disadvantage to the group being discriminated against. The latter term is far more innocuous.

If there is a good and sound reason for the differentiation (e.g. mens and women's tennis matches or running races) then it seems to me that it is permissable.

Discrimination which is designed to demean or reduce the status of a particular group, is not OK.

[cjs55]

What if it is discrimination against a particular group like, say, child molesters or murderers though?

(being annoying, can't help it)

Discimination does not necessarily need to have negative connotations, but it certainly does. But I am very disciminative towards many things: People I find to be idiots, Music I find to be mindlessly recombinatory or reiterative, etc.

Elitism implies discimination, and well, I'm not an egalitarian.

[Geoff]

My discriminating tastes keep me from shopping at Wal-Mart. Ever.

So does mine, I choose not to live in a country that has Wal-Mart.

No, but seriously... Discrimination must be acceptable where the lack of it would clearly cause harm. Like, allowing somebody unable to breathe in a smoky environment to work in factory that has a high level of airborne particulants. The discrimination helps avoid harm.

Another example would be where those who have a history of child abuse must clearly be discriminated against in choosing a carer for small children.

I therefore propose my 'acceptability' theory based upon this :

"Discrimation is only acceptable where those discriminated against would be harmed or severely disadvantaged by being included"

Which means no discrimation unless, type test. Which I suppose is somewhat akin to the current discrimination at work etc rules in the UK, borrowed from EC basic human rights acts of one form or another.

-Geoff

[cjs55]

What if they were to harm or seriously disadvantage others (not themselves) if they were included?

[Geoff]

What if they were to harm or seriously disadvantage others (not themselves) if they were included?

Ah, yes I meant to include that.. Refined..

"Discrimation is only acceptable where inclusion would result in harm or severe disadvantage"

-Geoff

[cjs55]

Now we just have to define severe disadvantage, and we may very well agree in the end!

[Geoff]

Now we just have to define severe disadvantage, and we may very well agree in the end!

Well, we just need to write some legislation

1. "Discrimination is only acceptable where inclusion would result in harm or severe disadvantage.

1(a) Discrimination can be defined as including any of the following

1(a) i Positively choosing an individual over any other on the grounds of sex, age, gender, race, religion or similar classification
ii Excluding from entry into a club, grouping, job or lifestyle choice on the basis of the conditions in subsection 1(a)(i)
ii Limited exclusions to this can be granted where obvious harm would result
from inclusion

1(b) Obvious harm is defined as harm or severe disadvantage. It includes and is not limited to the following :
1 (b) (i) Physical harm
(ii) Mental distress of a severe nature
(iii) The committing of a crime likely to cause the Obvious Harm
(iiv) Any such matters as shall be decreed from time to time by the courts

2 Any question as to discrimination shall be referred to an independent court of commissioners to decide.

Or some such thing... that's my take anyway.

-Geoff

[Philo]

"Discrimation is only acceptable where those discriminated against would be harmed or severely disadvantaged by being included"

So, I guess this means that banning gays from the military is ok, because there's going to be some redneck in the mix that's homophobic? Or how about banning the homophobic because there might be gays in the group?

Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

[Geoff]

So, I guess this means that banning gays from the military is ok, because there's going to be some redneck in the mix that's homophobic? Or how about banning the homophobic because there might be gays in the group?

Sounds like a slippery slope to me.

No, there is no need to discriminate on my test for gays in the military.. there is no obvious harm. if someone then commits a crime because of the lack of discrimination this is a different issue. Cause and effect in this case are separate - the homophobic response is not a direct result of the inclusion or otherwise... the crime follows separately and is already illegal.

-Geoff

[mgb]

Well, we just need to write some legislation

1. "Discrimination is only acceptable where inclusion would result in harm or severe disadvantage.

1(a) Discrimination can be defined as including any of the following

1(a) i Positively choosing an individual over any other on the grounds of sex, age, gender, race, religion or similar classification
ii Excluding from entry into a club, grouping, job or lifestyle choice on the basis of the conditions in subsection 1(a)(i)
ii Limited exclusions to this can be granted where obvious harm would result
from inclusion

1(b) Obvious harm is defined as harm or severe disadvantage. It includes and is not limited to the following :
1 (b) (i) Physical harm
(ii) Mental distress of a severe nature
(iii) The committing of a crime likely to cause the Obvious Harm
(iiv) Any such matters as shall be decreed from time to time by the courts

2 Any question as to discrimination shall be referred to an independent court of commissioners to decide.

Or some such thing... that's my take anyway.

-Geoff

That sounds great on paper.

But say I am a woman who enjoys exercising at health clubs. What I don't enjoy is being hit on constantly by guys. So I choose to go to an all woman's health club to exercise. I've just broken your rules.

Discrimination can be a tricky subject, and I believe that it is meant to be on this thread.

Is there a time and place for it? Sure. I guess I would say it like this, some things aren't for everyone. Quite frankly it probably is possible to discriminate without offending anyone. Women's health clubs might be a good example.

[tragula]

Yeah. A public or government organization has very little basis for discriminating at all. And the rules above would be great! But what about the private sphere. And what about the social sphere.

It seems the rules and the morality may become murkier and murkier the more personal the situation gets.

What if a man prefers a female masseuse? Or a woman wants a female gynecologist?

[Philo]

No, there is no need to discriminate on my test for gays in the military.. there is no obvious harm. if someone then commits a crime because of the lack of discrimination this is a different issue. Cause and effect in this case are separate - the homophobic response is not a direct result of the inclusion or otherwise... the crime follows separately and is already illegal.

But this is just my point: under your legislation, the minute one gay person in the military gets beat up by some homophobe, you have the situation where harm is proven, and thus it's ok to ban either one or the other from the organization (the military in this case) as legal discrimination.

MG brings up the point more subtly than mine, and may be the more common scenario. Either the woman or the womanizers could be legally discriminated against under this legislation. Harm can be defined on many levels, and it's use, even qualified as it is, seems to support indiscriminate discrimination instead of getting rid of it, unless I'm completely missing something.

It's a far harder thing to teach tolerance, as it will most likely follow what I call the Three Generation Rule (any social change you wish to make will take at least three generations to completely enact). Yet, in the long run, it's probably the only solution that's workable.