The Crowhill Weblog - Content

crow
Views and opinions on the news, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and ethics

Sites endorsed by Crowhill:
Crowhill Publishing Homebrewbeer.biz
The Krehbiel Report on Publishing@gregkrehbiel


Is mandatory bisexuality next on the agenda?

by Greg Krehbiel on 7 April 2017

Yes, of course that sounds ridiculous, but it might be the next logical step for some common ideas about equality.

Let’s start with gentlemen’s clubs.

So-called women’s advocates objected to all-male clubs because a lot of business is done at those clubs. If women are excluded, they are disadvantaged.

I was going to say please don’t tell them that some business is done in the men’s room, but we’re already past that. Female sports reporters have to be admitted to the men’s locker room to make sure they have parity with the male reporters. It might only be a matter of time before we have to have mixed-sex bathrooms.

More recently, some people were concerned with the effect that VP Pence’s strict dinner and drinking policies might have on women’s career opportunities. If the VP has dinner alone with men, but not with women, doesn’t that put women at a disadvantage in their political careers?

But … what about simple attraction? We all know the male boss might treat the young female better than the young male. In the name of equality should we force him to have therapy to be attracted to both sexes equally? Or, perhaps, therapy to erase all traces of sexual attraction?

Actually, that would be better because right now ugly people are at a disadvantage against attractive people. If none of us had any sexual attraction at all, to anybody, think how much more “equal” the world would be.

And how boring.

IOW, there is something fundamentally wrong with trying to enforce “equality” on a sexual species. It’s just not going to happen.

2017-04-07  »  Greg Krehbiel

Talkback x 12

  1. William
    7 April 2017 @ 5:58 pm

    QUOTE: Actually, that would be better because right now ugly people are at a disadvantage against attractive people. If none of us had any sexual attraction at all, to anybody, think how much more “equal” the world would be.

    Too funny!…lol! Dude…you have waaaay too much time on your hands if this is the stuff you’re thinking about…lol! 😉

    That said, reasonable advocates for equality are actually seeking “fairness” in access and treatment. Though challenged, at times, it’s a sound desire and objective.

  2. Greg Krehbiel GregK
    8 April 2017 @ 8:02 am

    @William, as if it takes any time or mental effort to realize how stupid sexual identity politics is?

    How is “fairness” different? Is it “fair” that attractive people are paid more than unattractive people?

  3. William
    8 April 2017 @ 1:55 pm

    IMO, no, it’s not fair. Yet, it happens. My point was that it’s not unreasonable to attempt to mitigate undue bias. Not that “bias” is bad, per se, but when it’s applied in ways that inappropriately and illegally limits people, based illegitimate factors, then it shouldn’t be tolerated.

    For instance, in a position where two individuals (one perceived to be attractive and the other unattractive) have similar credentials, experience, skills, work performance and potential and the ONLY apparent reason one is being paid significantly less is due to their looks…it would not be unreasonable for the unattractive individual to call that out and seek greater pay equity. IMO, to accept, as normative, that attractive people “should” be paid more ONLY because of their looks is inappropriate (where it is not a BFOQ). As well, employment laws in certain jurisdictions deem bias based on one’s appearance illegal.

    Again, it happens. The question becomes what should be the appropriate response when it can be clearly demonstrated and it’s had an undue negative impact on an individual or group.

  4. Derek
    9 April 2017 @ 6:33 am

    Taller people are also paid more on average. Do companies need to offer stilts for those who are vertically challenged?

  5. Greg Krehbiel GregK
    9 April 2017 @ 7:39 am

    Harrison Bergeron is a funny short story about making everything equal.

  6. Robin R.
    9 April 2017 @ 10:58 am

    All people in leadership positions should be neutered.

  7. William
    9 April 2017 @ 2:00 pm

    Derek, sounds as if you don’t mind being paid significantly less when the only differentiator is your height (where height is not a factor for effective job performance). Cool…more for the rest of us! I guess Randy Newman got it right…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HH3szOIV9jQ

  8. smitemouth
    9 April 2017 @ 2:58 pm

    It’s difficult to determine what “equal work” even is sometimes. If you work in a factory and you and your co-worker produce 20 widgets per hour, then it’s easy to say that you are doing equal work. But give me two software engineers, and it’s different. 1) usually they are working on different or complementary things–never the same exact thing. 2) years later, how easy is their code to maintain? 3) how many bugs get reported in each’s code? 4) how quickly do they complete their tasks? 5) which one is self-reliant and which one needs supervision? 6) how does each work with a team? 7) which one creates designs that are open to expansion and change in the future and which one creates dead ends? 8) how skilled are they at debugging?

  9. Greg Krehbiel GregK
    9 April 2017 @ 6:56 pm

    @SM, yes, equal work is hard to quantify.

  10. Ken Crawford
    10 April 2017 @ 1:19 pm

    If “choice” is the defining good of the 21st century, then anything that implies permanence is something to be avoided. Marriage is in the cross-hairs as an example of this. Homosexuality was a “new” choice 25 years ago, but now it’s mundane and forces people to make a lifetime sexual declaration. That’s as bad as marriage, maybe even worse! Casual bisexual promiscuity for all is the only path to meaningful choice for all. (and after that it’s poly-amorous relationships for all!)

  11. Derek
    10 April 2017 @ 5:22 pm

    William, you read a lot into a simple observation. Do you have some sort of psychic power that gives you an advantage over others?

  12. William
    10 April 2017 @ 7:21 pm

    Derek, wow…how did you know? You must be psychic too! So, stilts aren’t the great pay “equalizer”? Darn, my crystal ball must be a bit dusty!