Comments on: Good and irrelevant discrimination http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/12/good-and-irrelevant-discrimination/ The largest, most active political society in Cambridge Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:56:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Grade inflation? We know how to deal with inflation. « Cambridge University Conservative Association http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/12/good-and-irrelevant-discrimination/comment-page-1/#comment-1703 Grade inflation? We know how to deal with inflation. « Cambridge University Conservative Association Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:57:09 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=276#comment-1703 [...] of qualifications is to be able to discriminate between people on grounds of ability. This is “good discrimination”. If it is really true that people are working harder and teachers are teaching better, then we need [...] [...] of qualifications is to be able to discriminate between people on grounds of ability. This is “good discrimination”. If it is really true that people are working harder and teachers are teaching better, then we need [...]

]]> By: Jenny S-T http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/12/good-and-irrelevant-discrimination/comment-page-1/#comment-85 Jenny S-T Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:23:11 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=276#comment-85 Great article! Thanks for explaining this so clearly. Great article! Thanks for explaining this so clearly.

]]> By: Gavin Rice http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/12/good-and-irrelevant-discrimination/comment-page-1/#comment-80 Gavin Rice Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:24:02 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=276#comment-80 One last thing: from your perspective bisexuality is a "thing" that "exists", and Ancient Greek men were bisexual without knowing it. I would say that bisexuality is not a "thing" that exists per se, but rather modern society feels a need to put this sort of behaviour, or rather the closest modern equivalent, into a category. Also, modern notions of what bisexuality entails (i.e. being attracted to men and women in the same way and on the same terms) are very different from how the Greek men interpreted their sexual behaviour, which involved both sex with women and sex with men, but their understanding of sexuality between different sexes and of sexuality between people of the same sex were very different. I hate over-simplifications! One last thing: from your perspective bisexuality is a “thing” that “exists”, and Ancient Greek men were bisexual without knowing it. I would say that bisexuality is not a “thing” that exists per se, but rather modern society feels a need to put this sort of behaviour, or rather the closest modern equivalent, into a category. Also, modern notions of what bisexuality entails (i.e. being attracted to men and women in the same way and on the same terms) are very different from how the Greek men interpreted their sexual behaviour, which involved both sex with women and sex with men, but their understanding of sexuality between different sexes and of sexuality between people of the same sex were very different.

I hate over-simplifications!

]]> By: Gavin Rice http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/12/good-and-irrelevant-discrimination/comment-page-1/#comment-79 Gavin Rice Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:13:19 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=276#comment-79 The terms are useful (I've even had to employ them myself), but they needn't be set in stone. The historical context, and the complexity of aesthetics, are useful for demonstrating to today's (mostly ignorant) populace that terminology such as "straight", "gay", "bi" or whatever are not set in stone. When someone tells me categorically that they are straight or gay, I tend to be highly sceptical. Anyway, we're way off topic, and I've lapsed into pedantry! Your article on discrimination was very good, especially the graph! The terms are useful (I’ve even had to employ them myself), but they needn’t be set in stone. The historical context, and the complexity of aesthetics, are useful for demonstrating to today’s (mostly ignorant) populace that terminology such as “straight”, “gay”, “bi” or whatever are not set in stone. When someone tells me categorically that they are straight or gay, I tend to be highly sceptical.

Anyway, we’re way off topic, and I’ve lapsed into pedantry!

Your article on discrimination was very good, especially the graph!

]]> By: Hugo Hadlow http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/12/good-and-irrelevant-discrimination/comment-page-1/#comment-78 Hugo Hadlow Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:39:34 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=276#comment-78 I should also say that even if this historical argument was sound and meant that these concepts are not useful when talking about history, it still wouldn't mean the concepts are not useful when talking about now. I should also say that even if this historical argument was sound and meant that these concepts are not useful when talking about history, it still wouldn’t mean the concepts are not useful when talking about now.

]]> By: Hugo Hadlow http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/12/good-and-irrelevant-discrimination/comment-page-1/#comment-77 Hugo Hadlow Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:54:57 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=276#comment-77 I know all that; I was being deliberately dismissive. Yes, I should have mentioned asexuality, and celibacy, but substitute "desires" for "sleeps with" and I am correct. Just because the concepts didn't exist once upon a time, and the people themselves wouldn't have recognised them, that doesn't mean they are wrong. "Does that mean that they were all what you call 'bisexual'? No, of course not: they would not have recognised such a term, or such an idea." Actually the answer is yes. That they wouldn't have recognised the term or idea is irrelevant. I know all that; I was being deliberately dismissive. Yes, I should have mentioned asexuality, and celibacy, but substitute “desires” for “sleeps with” and I am correct. Just because the concepts didn’t exist once upon a time, and the people themselves wouldn’t have recognised them, that doesn’t mean they are wrong.

“Does that mean that they were all what you call ‘bisexual’? No, of course not: they would not have recognised such a term, or such an idea.” Actually the answer is yes. That they wouldn’t have recognised the term or idea is irrelevant.

]]> By: Gavin Rice http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/12/good-and-irrelevant-discrimination/comment-page-1/#comment-76 Gavin Rice Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:44:12 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=276#comment-76 To comment slightly further (and less dismissively), does that mean that monks, nuns, Catholic priests and other celibates aren't anything, because they don't sleep with anyone? (Apart from the bad ones of course). Or indeed that anyone who chooses to obstain from sex is neither straight nor gay nor bisexual? Clearly this is nonsense. Sexual activity isn't necessary in order to have sexual preferences. Sinilarly, there is no barrier preventing straight people from sleeping with members of the same sex and vice versa. Therefore, any discussion of this issue must refer to desires rather than activities. Once we have established that sexuality or rather talk of sexual orientation has to do with desires, life becomes a lot more complicated. To categorise aesthetic desire in such a formulaic manner is simplistic and and unintelligent. For Plato, true aesthetic desire in the form of "eros" (read Phaedrus for context) can only exist between men. Sexual desire was considered a combined desire for body and soul, not just one or the other. In other words, people fall in love with what is beautiful, and for the Greeks the "body beautiful" was inevitably associated with men. However, none of the red-blooded Greek warriors who took male lovers would consider themselves "gay", not would their society have had any conception of such a thing. They all had wives with whom they had children. Does that mean that they were all what you call "bisexual"? No, of course not: they would not have recognised such a term, or such an idea. Back then, people didn't "fancy" one sex or the other, the idea is totally modern and in my view erroneous. You see? Sexuality isn't simple at all. To comment slightly further (and less dismissively), does that mean that monks, nuns, Catholic priests and other celibates aren’t anything, because they don’t sleep with anyone? (Apart from the bad ones of course). Or indeed that anyone who chooses to obstain from sex is neither straight nor gay nor bisexual? Clearly this is nonsense. Sexual activity isn’t necessary in order to have sexual preferences. Sinilarly, there is no barrier preventing straight people from sleeping with members of the same sex and vice versa. Therefore, any discussion of this issue must refer to desires rather than activities.

Once we have established that sexuality or rather talk of sexual orientation has to do with desires, life becomes a lot more complicated. To categorise aesthetic desire in such a formulaic manner is simplistic and and unintelligent. For Plato, true aesthetic desire in the form of “eros” (read Phaedrus for context) can only exist between men. Sexual desire was considered a combined desire for body and soul, not just one or the other. In other words, people fall in love with what is beautiful, and for the Greeks the “body beautiful” was inevitably associated with men. However, none of the red-blooded Greek warriors who took male lovers would consider themselves “gay”, not would their society have had any conception of such a thing. They all had wives with whom they had children. Does that mean that they were all what you call “bisexual”? No, of course not: they would not have recognised such a term, or such an idea. Back then, people didn’t “fancy” one sex or the other, the idea is totally modern and in my view erroneous.

You see? Sexuality isn’t simple at all.

]]> By: Gavin Rice http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/12/good-and-irrelevant-discrimination/comment-page-1/#comment-75 Gavin Rice Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:23:19 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=276#comment-75 Read some aesthetics and some history of sexuality, then we can talk :p Read some aesthetics and some history of sexuality, then we can talk :p

]]> By: Hugo Hadlow http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/12/good-and-irrelevant-discrimination/comment-page-1/#comment-74 Hugo Hadlow Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:39:10 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=276#comment-74 I'm afraid I get lost when you start talking about sexuality. As far as I'm concerned, someone who sleeps with the opposite sex is straight, someone who sleeps with their own sex is gay, and someone who sleeps with both is bi. Simple. I’m afraid I get lost when you start talking about sexuality. As far as I’m concerned, someone who sleeps with the opposite sex is straight, someone who sleeps with their own sex is gay, and someone who sleeps with both is bi. Simple.

]]> By: Gavin Rice http://www.cuca.org.uk/2008/09/12/good-and-irrelevant-discrimination/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Gavin Rice Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:18:03 +0000 http://www.cuca.org.uk/?p=276#comment-71 Furthermore, much as I sympathise with the CUSU LBGT group's opposition to back-labelling historical people as "straight" or "gay", merely adding the extra option of "bi" to this categorisation process would not solve anything. The real mistake is reading modern attitudes to sexuality back into very different historical cultures AT ALL. Take, for example the fact the homosexual activity was commonplace among the Greeks alongside heterosexual activity with their wives; do we conclude that all Ancient Greeks were "gay" or "bi"? It's time for Marxist, feminist and other "interest group" historians to stop this utter nonsense. Furthermore, much as I sympathise with the CUSU LBGT group’s opposition to back-labelling historical people as “straight” or “gay”, merely adding the extra option of “bi” to this categorisation process would not solve anything. The real mistake is reading modern attitudes to sexuality back into very different historical cultures AT ALL. Take, for example the fact the homosexual activity was commonplace among the Greeks alongside heterosexual activity with their wives; do we conclude that all Ancient Greeks were “gay” or “bi”? It’s time for Marxist, feminist and other “interest group” historians to stop this utter nonsense.

]]>