What qualifies as discrimination?

[Katzpur]

I've been thinking a lot about this since the thread on women and the priesthood became such a hot one. A lot of people felt very strongly that religions such as mine who prohibit women from holding the priesthood are discriminating against half of society and are treating women as if they were less worthy in God's eyes to men. What I am curious about is this...

Is something truly discrimination if the individuals who are supposedly being discriminated against don't feel that they are? It seems to me that in order for a particular behavior or policy to be discriminatory, someone has to feel hurt or left out. I can't speak for women outside of the LDS Church, but I personally don't know of any LDS women who even want the Priesthood. If we don't feel discriminated against, are we truly being discriminated against? What do you think? Feel free to consider issues other than women and the priesthood in responding to this question. I'm interested in the subject of discrimination in a wider context that just this one issue.

 

[Aqualung]

I think I started a thread similar to this a while ago... I seem to remember it disintigrating into a thread about gay marriage, with people calling me a homo-hater and stuff...

 

[evearael]

Discrimination is forced, in my opinion. For instance, if a law was passed that said all women had to become stay at home mommies, that would qualify as discrimination. If a woman choose to be a stay at home mommy because of her faith, that is not discrimination.

 

[Defij]

I've been thinking a lot about this since the thread on women and the priesthood became such a hot one. A lot of people felt very strongly that religions such as mine who prohibit women from holding the priesthood are discriminating against half of society and are treating women as if they were less worthy in God's eyes to men. What I am curious about is this...

Is something truly discrimination if the individuals who are supposedly being discriminated against don't feel that they are? It seems to me that in order for a particular behavior or policy to be discriminatory, someone has to feel hurt or left out. I can't speak for women outside of the LDS Church, but I personally don't know of any LDS women who even want the Priesthood. If we don't feel discriminated against, are we truly being discriminated against? What do you think? Feel free to consider issues other than women and the priesthood in responding to this question. I'm interested in the subject of discrimination in a wider context that just this one issue.

Good question. My initial answer would be yes; of course it is still “discrimination”. By definition of discrimination, there is nothing about “feeling” like one is being held down or not. Simply because a person may not feel hurt or left out doesn’t mean they aren’t. However I see your point that if a person, or group of people, do not feel “discriminated” against, why rock the boat, basically. If they do not want a “hand up” or to be treated as equals in a certain situation, a person outside that group basically has no ground to stand on in telling them they are being discriminated against.

On a side note, I personally have known a few LDS females that feel “discriminated” against in regards to not being allowed in the Priesthood., someone has to feel hurt or left out. I can't speak for women outside of the LDS Church, but I personally don't know of any LDS women who even want the Priesthood.

And I’m not going to get into the whole women not being allowed as Church leaders thing except to say this: The “Pastoral” letters (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) which give rise to the whole “no women as leaders” theology and which are usually ascribed to Paul are most plausibly NOT written by Paul. Paul, if you read his non-disputed letters, had women serving as leaders in the church big time. I say this because Paul has gotten a bad rap for such a long time; I don’t know how many times I’ve heard “Paul hated women” blah blah blah. Paul did not! The Pastoral letters were pseudonymous!

 

[Abram]

This is a great question that I scratch my head to often. I think you can find discrimination in anything if you look hard enough. In regards to the priesthood I respect very highly the LDS outlook on the subject. But you will find at least one female out there that doesn't think its fair. Its not up to her to try to change it, but learn to conform to it. Easier said then done I understand. But the LDS belief have been put in place for a reason, over time one might forget why and start to question the whole idea then change its ways. To end up learning why it was set up that way in the first place.

There will be always someone left out and feelings will be hurt. (Someone needs to be picked last for the team) What I think happens is instead of letting it go they hold on to it for attention. You'll find at the heart of some folks that proclaim discrimination is a need to be noticed.

:sorry1: this was a clumsy post. Can't quite explain what I as tyring to get at.
</IMG></IMG>

 

[gnomon]

I've been thinking a lot about this since the thread on women and the priesthood became such a hot one. A lot of people felt very strongly that religions such as mine who prohibit women from holding the priesthood are discriminating against half of society and are treating women as if they were less worthy in God's eyes to men. What I am curious about is this...

Is something truly discrimination if the individuals who are supposedly being discriminated against don't feel that they are? It seems to me that in order for a particular behavior or policy to be discriminatory, someone has to feel hurt or left out. I can't speak for women outside of the LDS Church, but I personally don't know of any LDS women who even want the Priesthood. If we don't feel discriminated against, are we truly being discriminated against? What do you think? Feel free to consider issues other than women and the priesthood in responding to this question. I'm interested in the subject of discrimination in a wider context that just this one issue.

Anything which determines someone's place based on their identity or ability is discriminatory. By definition, any discernment of an individual is discrimination but I assume you are discussing in particular discrimination which only takes in a person's identity and disregards merit or ability.

In regards to those who claim that the LDS church is discriminating against women in society, as a whole, because they do so within the church is not logical. The rules of the church do not extend outside the church and effect those who do not belong to the church. I reasonably assume that someone who is not a member of the church cannot join the priesthood so those women who do not belong do not even hold the oppurtunity to be discriminated against on this matter. To further claim that women are less worthy may well be a cultural misunderstanding.

Discrimination occurs on many levels for various reasons. You must fit a certain physical criterion in order to fly or even join the military. Sometimes 'favoritism' is used to rectify what is perceived as past discrimination. For example, local governments will offer contracts to minority based businesses first due to past discriminatory practices. A practice which is discrimination based on identity rather than merit.

I don't think how we feel about discrimination determines its existence. Rather, I think people are taught to fill a certain place in society which can affect how they feel about discrimination. Western culture taught women that they were a 'lesser' sex and that they could not fulfill certain functions within life. In this society they faced economic, social and legal discrimination. How individual women felt about it is irrelevant to whether or not it actually existed. And of course, many women and men felt strongly against this discrimination and changed it.

I can understand why some people may feel that they need to pressure certain religious groups to change their practice to fall in line with a social norm but I do not necessarily agree with their attempt. I prefer education allowing individuals to make the choice for themselves rather than changing a structure in which I do not belong. There are other issues involving this, however.

Am I making any sense?

 

[linwood]

Discrimination is keeping one from doing or being something merely because of physical attributes or worldview.

Is something truly discrimination if the individuals who are supposedly being discriminated against don't feel that they are?

Yes, it is.
Discrimination isn`t based upon who "feels" like they are being discriminated against.
if it were our courtrooms would be even busier than they are.

Is the person in an abusive relationship being abused even if he/she doesn`t think they are?

Edit:

Keeping people from holding any position within any organization merely because of their physical attributes is discrimination.
It may be accepted discrimination but it is still discrimination.

We all discriminate and I don`t believe the act of discriminating is inherently wrong.
It`s just that people will accept certain levels of it .

 

[Mike182]

let us not forget that there can be both positive and negative descrimination - so i would say discrimination is the unfair treatment of a person or group of peoples based on one or more characteristics shared by that group or held by that individual

 

[linwood]

let us not forget that there can be both positive and negative descrimination - so i would say discrimination is the unfair treatment of a person or group of peoples based on one or more characteristics shared by that group or held by that individual

That would be making the word "discrimination" inherently "bad" by describing it as "unfair".
It isn`t always "unfair"

 

[Mike182]

That would be making the word "discrimination" inherently "bad" by describing it as "unfair".
It isn`t always "unfair"

yes it is always unfair

situation, a boss want to promote someone in his company, he has two male applicants, and one female - the two males are very capable of the job, genuinley better suited than the female, but she gets the job - why? because the boss likes blondes

this is unfair, and it is positive descrimination towards the female

 

[Aqualung]

yes it is always unfair

No it isn't. It is always unequal, but it is frequently fair.

 

[linwood]

No it isn't. It is always unequal, but it is frequently fair.

Well said.

I believe what makes discrimination "unfair" is when it is based upon standards that have no meaning within the context of the discrimination or standards which are based upon physical traits.

 

[linwood]

yes it is always unfair

situation, a boss want to promote someone in his company, he has two male applicants, and one female - the two males are very capable of the job, genuinley better suited than the female, but she gets the job - why? because the boss likes blondes

That situation would fall into my definition of unfair discrimination as the standard used was physical trait.

Here`s another situation.

I need a baby sitter.
I have two applicants.
One has a flawless history of caring for children and the other has had one child injured under her care.

I`m choosing the one with the flawless history.
The standard for discrimination I used was safety for my child.

I discriminated against the babysitter because she allowed a child under her care to harm himself.

This is discrimination, yet it is to my mind "fair".

Discrimination is so often used in the derogatory in our culture we`ve lost sight of it`s real meaning.

 

[Quiddity]

That situation would fall into my definition of unfair discrimination as the standard used was physical trait.

Here`s another situation.

I need a baby sitter.
I have two applicants.
One has a flawless history of caring for children and the other has had one child injured under her care.

I`m choosing the one with the flawless history.
The standard for discrimination I used was safety for my child.

I discriminated against the babysitter because she allowed a child under her care to harm himself.

This is discrimination, yet it is to my mind "fair".

Discrimination is so often used in the derogatory in our culture we`ve lost sight of it`s real meaning.

That's a good explanation, I agree with that.

 

[Comet]

Discrimination is forced, in my opinion. For instance, if a law was passed that said all women had to become stay at home mommies, that would qualify as discrimination. If a woman choose to be a stay at home mommy because of her faith, that is not discrimination.

Then how do you feel about the caste system that Hindu's follow?

 

[evearael]

Then how do you feel about the caste system that Hindu's follow?

There was historically very little choice in that system. Thankfully, that is changing now.

 

[Katzpur]

That situation would fall into my definition of unfair discrimination as the standard used was physical trait.

Here`s another situation.

I need a baby sitter.
I have two applicants.
One has a flawless history of caring for children and the other has had one child injured under her care.

I`m choosing the one with the flawless history.
The standard for discrimination I used was safety for my child.

I discriminated against the babysitter because she allowed a child under her care to harm himself.

This is discrimination, yet it is to my mind "fair".

Discrimination is so often used in the derogatory in our culture we`ve lost sight of it`s real meaning.

There used to be an excellent music store here in Salt Lake City. It carried only classical music. The name of the store was "Discriminator Music." My son, now age 26, was, as a teenager, terribly bothered by the name of this store. We'd always tried to raise our kids in a very unprejudiced atmosphere and he couldn't understand why I'd want to give my business to a store that promoted itself as being discriminating. I had a kind of a hard time trying to explain to him that the store was trying to sell music to people with like tastes, and nothing more.

The dictionary says that "to discriminate" is "to distinguish or observe the difference between two things, to differentiate or make a distinction." There is nothing inherently wrong about making a distinction between things. As far as religion is concerned, it strikes me as odd that anyone on the outside looking in would be so presumptuous as to say that I am being treated unfairly simply because my Church's doctrines make a distinction that he is uncomfortable with.

 

[linwood]

The dictionary says that "to discriminate" is "to distinguish or observe the difference between two things, to differentiate or make a distinction." There is nothing inherently wrong about making a distinction between things.

Agreed

As far as religion is concerned, it strikes me as odd that anyone on the outside looking in would be so presumptuous as to say that I am being treated unfairly simply because my Church's doctrines make a distinction that he is uncomfortable with.

It`s the standard of distinction used here.

What makes it wrong is that we are not not discriminating between two different types of music.
We are discriminating between the different values of an individual human life or groups of human lives.

There is no moral dillema when discerning music yet there is when discerning life. and it`s value.

Given the qualifier our culture gives human life.
"All human life is equal."
We must first start our discernment from this standpoint.
To disqualify one human life merely because it`s female is indeed the "bad" form of discrimnination because it doesn`t even meet the first standard of moral discernment within our culture.

 

[Mike182]

That situation would fall into my definition of unfair discrimination as the standard used was physical trait.

Here`s another situation.

I need a baby sitter.
I have two applicants.
One has a flawless history of caring for children and the other has had one child injured under her care.

I`m choosing the one with the flawless history.
The standard for discrimination I used was safety for my child.

I discriminated against the babysitter because she allowed a child under her care to harm himself.

This is discrimination, yet it is to my mind "fair".

Discrimination is so often used in the derogatory in our culture we`ve lost sight of it`s real meaning.

ok, i see now, and yes you are right.

so fair descrimination is ok, but unfair descrimination is not ok, agreed?

 

[fantome profane]

Is something truly discrimination if the individuals who are supposedly being discriminated against don't feel that they are? It seems to me that in order for a particular behavior or policy to be discriminatory, someone has to feel hurt or left out.

I can kind of understand the logic that says if no one is harmed then there is no unfair discrimination. It is kind of like saying, “no harm no foul”. But I am not sure I agree.

By this logic if you could manage to convince a group of people that they should be slaves, that slavery is the best possible situation for them, then slavery would then be moral. And I cannot accept that. And I know this is not what you are suggesting, but just wanted to point out that just because a group of people feel something is fair, does not necessarily mean that it is. And that is really all I wanted to say.

On the actual issue of women as priests I want to say that I don’t believe in discrimination on the basis of gender. I try hard not to discriminate on such a basis, and I would not belong to any organisation that did. But of course no one needs to belong to the Church of LDS, nor does anyone have a right to be a priest in the LDS. Any woman in LDS who wishes to be a priest is free to do so. She simply needs to quit and join a different kind of church that allows it, or start her own.