Equality in the United States?

[outlawstar69]

Why is it that racial profiling is used when convienient, and how is it useful in any way? When WW2 was going on, it was the Japanese who were targeted, even though I'm sure the vast majority of Japanese immigrants weren't spies - looking back on our history, it almost seems that they were put in the camps to "make the rest of America feel better". When Timothy McVeigh bombed the building in Oklahoma, we weren't all told to be on the look out for "average sized caucasian males", for one reason: it wouldn't be good for the Spirit of Nationalism if everyone suspected everyone and his neighbor... oh wait, with the authorities telling us to report anyone acting suspicious to the proper authorities I guess it's too late. My point is that I think the entire idea of racial profiling, be it at the airport, in standardized tests, in the "driving While Black" situation, or in the people of different races getting advantages in college, I think it's demeaning. I can quite assure you that if you see me at the airport, I have no intention whatsoever of hijacking an airplane, regardless of my heritage that I'm quite proud of.

[Dagger]

[QUOTE=Inari]What should people of mixed ethnicity do?

...Dose protecting minority groups increase the equality of the United States?
[/QUOTE]

Normally the test-taker is instructed to fill in all of the bubbles which apply to him or her. That's what I do, anyway.

I don't understand how practices like these serve to protect minority groups (if that is, in fact, what they are intended to accomplish). Could you please clarify this for me?

~Dagger~

[Harry]

[QUOTE=Inari]Here's another thought for anyone who cares:

Teachers in public school systems are required to look around their classrooms and determine the ethnicities of their students (X number of Hispanic females, Y number of African Americans males, etc.). These teachers are not allowed to inquire about the racial background of any one of their students, but they are asked to speculate. I know that this is their way of insuring that various minority groups get a fair chance.[/quote]
Who told you that load of crap?

[quote]Think about it, every time you take a standardized test (AP, SAT, ACT, etc.) you are asked to fill in race bubble. Should they really care what race you are? Is this a good policy? What should people of mixed ethnicity do? Dose protecting minority groups increase the equality of the United States?

~The Gadfly[/QUOTE]
It's for statistics idiot. Not some weird "well he's black so lets add 300 points to his SAT" thing.

Sorry that came out so harsh but don't believe everything someone tells you.

[BlueGender]

[size=1][color=navy]As a black male myself I really dont find it offensive to be called black or African American if someones describing me.But there are awkward times when I have been around white people and hear them whisper "that black guy" im like you shouldnt feel the need to whisper the designation of ones skin color and why would I be offended by that?

I believe skin color shouldn't be the deciding factor in anything but I believe there will always besome racists as long as there is skin color. I mean I have been in stores and been followed while a white customer is also there and its to the point where im use to it. Im mean why should they really have the right to harass me but its been happening forever and you eventually get use to it as I said before. I dont want an edge on anybody I just would like to be treat equal and thats really not to much to ask for. If I have a 3.0 average and a white student has a 3.0 average were applying to the same college we should both have the same consideration.

I mean I have been called down to take the most racists test because im an African American since 6th grade. They test you in 6th grade and 8th grade and ask you quesitions like have you ever sold drugs, been sent to prison or sold drugs. It was " for college research" but im like why does it matter.[/size][/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='BlueGender][size=1][color=navy]I mean I have been called down to take the most racists test because im an African American since 6th grade. They test you in 6th grade and 8th grade and ask you quesitions like have you ever sold drugs, been sent to prison or sold drugs. It was " for college research" but im like why does it matter.[/size'][/color][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I was asked those questions once in 9th grade because my ultra stupidly nosey Business MAth teacher noticed a bottle of Midol fall out of my book bag and asked if I was distributing drug periphenilia. (Infact so was my brother, by the same teacher

I looked at her and said, well, it depends on what Midol goes for on the black market. Needless to say that answer got me a meeting with the school conselor. It's always amazed me what stupid things will get you in trouble.

I went to a school that was [b]voluntarily[/b] segregated. The Asians ate with asians, the whites ate with whites and so on. Very few peopel crossed that stupid line. And if you did you were trying to be something. Like what I don't know, one of my closest friends is Mexican Irish so I have no clue where she was supposed to sit. So I think all us half breeds got a table together as well, who knows.[/color]

[Aanallein]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]The only person who could really say if it matters is ralph Bunch himself. I would grant him the right to determine how hes' remembered, by race, nationality, or what have you.

However, I'd also grant everyone else the right to decide for themselves how to remember Mr. Bunch.[/quote]

Very true. But that is just a relativity issue. I mean, if you wish to think that if you robbed a bank it was moral and right. Then that is your own thought. That is all that matters then right? So there is no guidelines of morality and thought process. That is to assume there is no societal control over thought and what not. [it is a bit vague the response, but time is running short, and I would like to address everything.]



[quote name='DeathBug']Depends; do you mean equality of opportunity, or equlity of result?[/quote]

Well, I assumed we were talking in terms of equality of result.



[quote name='DeathBug']Explain, please.[/quote]

Well, we have such laws in America as affirmative action and what not, that seem to be taken advantage of by those who it helps. I mean, there are a bunch of little laws and discrepancies in the law that I can research if you'd like. PM me about it. I just feel that it destroys the equality of opportunity and result.



[quote name='DeathBug']Nice call; that's already what the law says.[/quote]

Best way to go then eh? It may be the law, but that doesn't matter, it is how I follow it.



[QUOTE=DeathBug]I've lived in Europe, and I will say this: pride in your country is not an American-specific trait. The french, British, Spanish, german, believe themselves to be the best, and take pride in (most parts) of their long history.

If that is defined as arrogance, then just about every country is.[/QUOTE]

It is not only that. I know that nationality exists throughout the world. If it didn't then countries would not be so self sufficiently strong. I know that I myself am arrogant, it is nationality and pride to the extent that it is a flaw. There is nationality mixed in with the never wrong attitude. I know it exists in other nations, maybe it is just me, but I think it is rampant in America. Don't get me wrong. I say that I am part of the problem as well. But meh. It may just be me as I said.

[DeathBug]

[quote name='Aanallein']Very true. But that is just a relativity issue. I mean, if you wish to think that if you robbed a bank it was moral and right. Then that is your own thought. That is all that matters then right? So there is no guidelines of morality and thought process. That is to assume there is no societal control over thought and what not. [it is a bit vague the response, but time is running short, and I would like to address everything.][/quote]

This isn't in regards to morals, it's in regard to legacy. Did he want to be rememebered as a black man, an American man, etcetera. What you're describing is moral relativism, which is a dangerous and socially corrosive concept.


[quote name='Aanallein']Well, I assumed we were talking in terms of equality of result.[/quote]

I'm sorry, but I can't subscribe to any school of thought that promotes "equality of result".

People, regardless of social differences, are going to get different results because they are different. They are different in character, ability, fortitude and desire.

Equality, to me, means that I can say, "Okay, here are your opportunities; they're mostly the same as anyone else. You can go anywhere you're willing to go, do anything you want, provided that you are willing to work towards it and make neccessary sacrifices, just like everyone else."

Equality of opportunity is a great ideal worth striving for. equality of result is communism, an "equal sharing of miseries". And communism is evil.

[quote name='Aanallein']Well, we have such laws in America as affirmative action and what not, that seem to be taken advantage of by those who it helps. I mean, there are a bunch of little laws and discrepancies in the law that I can research if you'd like. PM me about it. I just feel that it destroys the equality of opportunity and result.[/quote]

Again, equiality of opportunity is all that matters. Like the adverts say, "Results may vary".

And affirmative action is a whole other issue, but I see your point. Is it proper to have any sort of race-based benefits program sponsered by the national government? I don't think so, myself.

[quote name='Aanallein']Best way to go then eh? It may be the law, but that doesn't matter, it is how I follow it.[/quote]

Well, I support the right for a private citizen to be bigoted. I don't like it, and I will tell them they're wrong, but it's their right. However, the government, and any program that recieves government aid or endosement should be color-blind.


[quote name='Aanallein']It is not only that. I know that nationality exists throughout the world. If it didn't then countries would not be so self sufficiently strong. I know that I myself am arrogant, it is nationality and pride to the extent that it is a flaw. There is nationality mixed in with the never wrong attitude. I know it exists in other nations, maybe it is just me, but I think it is rampant in America. Don't get me wrong. I say that I am part of the problem as well. But meh. It may just be me as I said.[/quote]

Again, that is not an American problem, that's a human problem. The reason the focus is on America is because we're the only world super power, and many other nations *cough*France!*cough* are looking for any opportunity to put us down a notch.

So, we're not patriotic, we're jingoistic and arrogant.

It's life in the spotlight that magnifies flaws. For example, did you know that one of the strongest political parties in France, the National Front party, is openly racist? They're against any and all immigration, and are xenophobic to a fault. Yet they're not only in a position of respectable power, they're passing legislature.

Why doesn't this ever make the news? Because the world focus isn't on France; it's on us. It's lonely at the top.

[Inari]

Here, I clarify what keeping racial statistics on standardized tests is attempting to do:

At my school we are required to take some easy standardized tests to graduate. They were so easy that the majority of people passed their freshman year. Anyways, my school wont get funding unless 95% or more of the student body as a whole [B]and[/B] 95% of various minority groups pass. So if we had only two black students at my school and one was absent for the test, that minority group would fail and the whole school would fail. If 95% of our school dose not pass we loose some funding from the state government. Theoretically this is supposed to ensure that minority groups are fairly treated and that they are keeping up with the rest of the school. Do you think that this will really help? Is the theory behind their methods just?

I'm pretty sure that colleges use our races that we specify on SATs and ACTs to diversify their schools. I know that allot of colleges want an extremely diversified campus. They might accomplish this by picking a less qualified person of a certain minority group in order to fill their imaginary quotas. I know that I want to go to a diversified campus, but should I be chosen more on my race that my intelligence?

I know that one of my friends is less than one-fourth Mexican, and generally she identifies herself as Caucasian. Earlier this year she identified herself as a Hispanic on the SATs. She scored relatively well and was sent various scholarship information forms. This time she has a plethora of scholarships intended for Hispanics, which she would not be eligible to receive if her mother was not half Mexican. With the same scores as a Caucasian, she will have far more opportunities. I know that this is intended to help struggling minority groups have and equal opportunity, but is it fair? Do struggling minority groups need this kind of help?

~The Gadfly

[Shinken]

If you ask me, race, nationality, religion, or any of that stuff should have nothing to do with recognition of a person. If you do something great (or horrible), no matter where you're from, or what you believe in, you're still doing it as a human being.

[Inari]

Here's another thought for anyone to write about:

Should immigrants be forces to learn English before they can enter the country? I know that America is becoming more and more bilingual with everything from warnings to shampoo instructions in two or three languages. Is this a bad thing? Should tourists make an effort to learn the language of the country they enter? Should I learn French because I'm going there this summer? Often Americans (especially older people) get very annoyed with people speaking in other languages than English. By forcing people to learn our language are we destroying the liberties/cultures of immigrants or are we preserving the United Statesian way of life? What do you think?

Thanks for all of your posts,
~The Gadfly

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]This post is in reply to Inari?s most recent question(s).

I do not believe that immigrants should be forced to learn English before they enter the United States, because it is very plausible that it is not a job requirement. However, I do feel that the United States should once and for all declare English the official language strictly for public educational purposes. Many public school systems have been forced to build schools that are entirely taught in a language other than English, despite English being the primary language used in America.

I do think, however, that Spanish should be required to be taught in every American school (beginning in grade school?perhaps fourth grade) just because the language is becoming so prevalent in the US. As our economies come to rely on each other more and more it is only appropriate to incorporate a bit of their culture into our public school systems.

Travelers, on the other hand, would be better off knowing a bit of the native language wherever their travels take them. I would think it would be a necessity just to get around.
However, they shouldn?t be made to learn the intricate workings of a language; it would just be beneficial for them to know how to ask directions.

Finally, by encouraging immigrants to [b]learn[/b] our language we are not stripping them of their heritage, we are broadening their knowledge. They don?t have to speak English in public or social settings. More than likely an immigrant is moving to the United States in order to change his/her life for the better, and is willing to make little sacrifices in order to better his or her life. For example, if I moved to Japan for work I wouldn?t expect the entire Japanese culture to bend over backwards and accommodate my American lifestyle, I would somewhat have to assimilate aspect of their culture and language in order to survive.[/color]

[DeathBug]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]It should also be pointed out that US immigrants who don't learn English are doing themselves an extreme disservice. tHey are limiting their opportunities in this country, as well as allowing themselves to become culturally isolated.[/color][/size][/font]

[Harry]

[QUOTE=Inari]Here's another thought for anyone to write about:

Should immigrants be forces to learn English before they can enter the country? I know that America is becoming more and more bilingual with everything from warnings to shampoo instructions in two or three languages. Is this a bad thing? Should tourists make an effort to learn the language of the country they enter? Should I learn French because I'm going there this summer? Often Americans (especially older people) get very annoyed with people speaking in other languages than English. By forcing people to learn our language are we destroying the liberties/cultures of immigrants or are we preserving the United Statesian way of life? What do you think?

Thanks for all of your posts,
~The Gadfly[/QUOTE]
You're right. We don't want anyone to think that we want to speak our own language. We should all cater to them and only speak the language they desire. :rolleyes:

[James]

[QUOTE=DeathBug] What you're describing is moral relativism, which is a dangerous and socially corrosive concept.
[/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]Moral relativism is a dangerous and socially corrosive concept? Rubbish.

Morals are one of the most relative things in human society. Everyone has different personal moral standards. Different cultures have various levels of moral standards...morals are, out of anything, one of the least "set in stone" elements of humanity. One only has to look at the last century of American history to see the way personal morals and social values have changed. So I think it's important to be careful about automatically condemning an idea as dangerous and socially corrosive -- when someone says that an idea is "dangerous", it automatically makes me think that they are a communist or something. lol

Anyway, in terms of the current issue of language...I agree that people shouldn't be forced to learn English to enter the United States. I can speak to that issue with some level of understanding, because English is Australia's official language.

But having said that, we -- like America -- are a nation made up of immigrants. Australia simply doesn't have a standard ethnicity, really. We are a complete mixture, primarily of European and Asian cultures and people.

The thing I like about Australia though, is that while we have a defined national identity, we strongly celebrate the various cultures that we've inherited, as a result of immigration.

Also, immigration and the multiple languages that come with it is simply a reality for nations like ours. Unless you close yourself off completely, people who don't speak English so well [i]are [/i]going to enter the country.

I mean, in Melbourne, we have very large asian and Greek populations. I think that Melbourne has the largest Greek population of any city outside Greece itself, for example. And in terms of asian groups, you'll find large amounts of Chinese and Japanese people in this particular part of the country.

As a result -- particularly in the city itself -- you will see various signs with multiple languages. You'll also go into certain stores and see touch monitors with either English and Japanese (or English and Chinese).

The thing is though, I don't sit there and say "Why the hell can't we just have ENGLISH-only monitors?!" It's just not realistic...and why [i]not [/i]celebrate the fact that people speak different languages?

I know that nobody here is necessarily saying that everyone [i]must [/i]know English...and I do agree with the idea of English being the emphasis in schooling. I am frequently surprised at the amount of people I see online (who come from English-speaking countries), who are unable to spell on a basic level. But that's more a pet peeve...and it's something that relates to people who were born speaking English, rather than another language (which is either a big condemnation of their own laziness, or of the education system as a whole lol).

I think I'll end this post here, simply because it's running away from me and becoming increasingly rambly. And I don't want to put you through that.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]I think that immigrants should be offered the choice of learning English when they move here since it's the main language in the country. In the places I've lived and visited there were only a very limited number of bilingual street signs and most of them were few and far between. Of course, most of them were in Spanish and english, but I haven't been to Canada in years!

Immigrants who don't chose to learn english are limiting themselves, but we're not forcing them to come, go or learn english anyway.

I do think that more americans should attempt to become bilingual since our increased trade with foreign countries and the fact that more and more americans travel abroad has necessitated such a movement. Plus an increase in immigrants has made it so you may have to be bilingual to get driving directions at a gas station in Downtown Austin. (True story)

Many people consider americans ignorant or stupid because the majority of us can only master english or think we're too good to speak another country's language.

I'm not going to get into the moral debate thing. Morals are interchangeable for everyone.[/color]

[Shinken]

I'm personally sick of hearing people saying that old [i]"We're in America, we shouldn't have to speak anything but American!"[/i] jargon. (Since when was there an "American" language?)

Seriously. You have no idea how many people I've heard say that. The worst part is that they're [i]not[/i] quoting the doting psycho-mom from VCPR in Vice City. They actually believe it!

As for morals, I'd have to agree that they're relative. After all, one man's satanic ritual is another man's prayer group.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE]Morals are one of the most relative things in human society. Everyone has different personal moral standards. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Morals are interchangeable for everyone.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]As for morals, I'd have to agree that they're relative.[/QUOTE]


[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Then any and all behaviors can be deemed accetable. That's the loggical progression of moral relavitism: anything goes.

Speaking of things going, this post is going off-topic, so I'm go to show a rare moment of intellectual self-discipline and end my sentiments about moral relavitism here. Back on topic now.[/color][/size][/font]

[Guest miaka_70030]

I think American would be the best. Why? Because it does not matter his color if he comes from America he is an Anerican!

[James]

[QUOTE=DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Then any and all behaviors can be deemed accetable. That's the loggical progression of moral relavitism: anything goes.

Speaking of things going, this post is going off-topic, so I'm go to show a rare moment of intellectual self-discipline and end my sentiments about moral relavitism here. Back on topic now.[/font][/size][/color][/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]Bingo on your first point. But of course, that's a dramatic over-simplification on your part.

We all have our own personal moral standards, obviously. There can be no argument about that, because the evidence of morals being relative is all around you.

Some people might be quite okay with the idea of having many sexual partners for example. To them, it might be deemed "successful" or something. To someone else, it might be considered promiscuous. In that case, as with many others, you're talking about one's own morals being relative.

Of course there are "moral norms" in society. And to some degree, our laws are based on those moral norms, as well as practical considerations.

So nobody is suggesting that "anything goes" in terms of the law -- obviously that's not what we're talking about. But we are saying that morals [i]are [/i]indeed relative.

Some view homosexuality as unnatural and immoral, as as a result of religious conviction. While others still view it as being perfectly natural and unharmful, based on any number of other factors (scientific or otherwise). Obviously there's a moral relativism there.

So, we all have our own personal morals. And that's what I'm talking about. In a sense you're quite right when you say "anything goes" -- because for some people, that's quite true. Some people simply don't have many strict moral concerns, where others (perhaps the majority) do.

If you view those people as immoral, or anything close to it, then that is yet another example of morals being relative. The fact that different moral standards exist worldwide is further proof that morals are relative. Nobody's going to sit there and say that one country's culture is "right" for adhering to a particular moral code. Obviously the truth of that situation (in terms of who is right or wrong) depends on where you live and what you're used to. Therefore, the view on the situation is wholly relative.

The only reason that people argue against morals being relative is generally because they want to express [i]their [/i]morals as being the "only" morals, or the "right" morals, which should be a standard through which everyone else in society should be judged. But obviously -- as anyone who lives in a modern society knows -- that is ridiculous and unrealistic.

It's like when some Islamic women wear the heard-scarf. Many view that as a question of personal morality. And yet many non-Islamic women (and many Islamic women for that matter), do not adhere to that personal moral...because their morals are slightly different. Is either particularly right or wrong? Are you going to decide that? I know I'm not.

There's also a contextual point. In some countries where the law requires the head-scarf, not wearing one is considered to be wrong. Yet in other countries, there is no law relating to it and it doesn't matter.

Again, relativism.

Whether or not you think that certain moral codes are right or wrong is entirely up to you -- it's your perspective, it's what you choose to agree with or adhere to. It's your relative view, based on whatever factors you include (your religion, your upbringing, your society, etc).

So, it's important to provide a distinction about that in this discussion. It's important that what I'm saying is not misrepresented; I'm not suggesting that people can simply go out there and do whatever they like; there are laws in both our countries that govern, to a degree, what we can and cannot do. That's not the point. The point is that, [i]within the law[/i], there are relative sets of morals for everyone. Everyone has a different opinion on all manner of issues, and everyone has different levels of tolerance for different things. That, in essence, is what I'm referring to when I talk about morals being relative. That is why we even talk about "personal morals" in the first place; you wouldn't have personal morals if there was no moral relativism. Whether or not that is ideal is another question -- I'm only talking about what's realistic and what exists at the moment.

And, to be clear, I don't view this line of discussion as being off topic. We are talking about "equality" and the various factors that are related to equality. If you are going to judge everyone by your own personal moral code, then that is very much an issue related to equality on a broader scale.[/color]

[Kairi37]

Some ppl are curious to learn about their race, so they look it up in history books to see what their race accomplished. Otherwise though, she should not make a big deal about race. We are technically an equal soceity. You aren't seeing the differences in restrooms anymore for the different races or such. I honestly think there should not be a difference in treating the races differently. It's not right.

EDIT: Oh, and in reply to the ppl having to learn English. I don't think they really have to. It may make things easier to speak English if you live in a part of town where everybody speaks English, but you're not forced to. Plenty of ppl speak both. And in other cities, there are neighborhoods where only ppl that speak Spanish live. You can speak whatever you want to.

[Desbreko]

[color=indigo]Well, the thing about saying that morality is relative is that it runs into the same problem as saying it isn't. That is, how can you really tell? Yes, morals vary widely throughout different countries and cultures, but why does that mean there can be no set standard of right and wrong? Different people may believe a lot of different things, but that doesn't change the fact that, if only one set of morals is truly correct, every other belief is wrong. But there really isn't any way to prove the argument either way, so there may be an absolute standard, and there may not.

So you really can't say for sure whether or not morals are relative. Peoples' personal moral standards are obviously relative to what they believe is right and wrong, but that doesn't mean there can't be one set standard by which everything should be judged. People could just be wrong. There's just no way to prove that they are, or that they aren't.[/color]

[Inari]

I agree with James in that morals are relevant when discussing equality. Our morals define our views on everything. So here's another thought question:

Should there be an international set definition of what equality is? Should world leaders follow guidelines set down by things such as the Geneva Convention, the Nuremberg Trials, or even decisions by the UN (or the EU for Europe)? If you've ever read the mission statement of the United Nations, it sounds very much like the United States' Declaration of Independence. Should President Bush have first gotten UN backing before going into Iraq, or was he justified in going in alone? Should the US soldiers torturing prisoners in Iraq be tried in US military courts or international ones? Also, under whose jurisdiction should Saddam Hussein be prosecuted? In a US court, UN court, or by his peers in Iraq (Probably with supervision by the US or the UN or a third party)? Where would he find justice?

Thank you for all of your thoughtful responses.

~The Gadfly

[Guest Midnight Rush]

I can't speak for any other countries, because I don't really care about many of them, but the United States needs no "permission" or "support" from anyone to do anything.

The countries of the world played a game long ago. That game was called militray, economic, and politacal domination challenge. Here is news for you: The United States Won.

[Inari]

Here's another thought question more directed towards Otaku:

On Otaku Boards we indicate our age by filling in our birthdays, but we never have to indicate our gender. By knowing the age of our fellow OB members do we make certain prejudices? Thoughts like [I]they're too young to be concerned with that[/I] or [I]they write really well for their age[/I]could be prejudices. Do you like to know the age of other writers, or does it even matter? I know that a lot of adults have preconceptions about teenagers like [I]oh, he'll crash your new car[/I] or [I]crazy teenagers out partying all night.[/I] Is that right? Do certain age groups deserve this? Even thoughts about the elderly like [I]they should keep old people off the roads[/I] could be considered a prejudice. Are these thoughts valid or a threat to equality?

Also, I know that on Otaku Boards you don't have to specify your gender, but should we? Do you believe that there are certain physical differences between males and females that make us too different to find equality? Like in the military should men and women have different fitness standards? Men and women have different bathrooms, is the segregation or "separate but equal"? Why do you think the United States has never had a woman president? Are men and women mentally different because of different hormone levels? In the 1920s Alice Paul proposed an Equal Rights Amendment for equality between the sexes. Does the US need it now, or is gender equality covered in the Civil Rights Amendments of the 1960s? Where is gender equality today?

~The Gadfly

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet]I may sound like I'm about to set the clock back a few decades or whatever, but rest assured I'm not.

Women don't have as much upper body strength as men. I don't know how they figure the running thing into PT tests and such, but the women's fast group in a usual army run (which is 2 miles) is equal to men's slow group.

However, most women I know are quite a bit more flexible than the men I know. If that has any logical bearing.

As for separate bathrooms, I feel that's more of a privacy issue than anything else. I know of women who can't go to the bathroom when there are other women in the same bathroom. I doubt those same women would be able to go to the bathroom if there was a man in the room.

Plus there's a whole safety issue.

Besides, (slightly off topic) I've been in a men's room before and I think the women's rooms are much cleaner.

As for age issues. Well, I can tell that some people don't really think all that much when they reply to topics on the board. But sometimes I think that has less to do with age and more to do with knowledge or maturity level.

I'm not sure that all of us really need to put up our gender specifics on this board since it's not a dating site or anything of the like. Hell, I really don't care if you think I'm a woman or not. Although I'm afraid I'd make a rather awful straight guy with my screen name and everything.

I've experianced the whole predjudice thing against young adults. It's not the most enjoyable experiance I've ever witnessed. My husband and I went to a gas station to ask for directions. I went in first and he stayed in the car. The lady I asked was an elderly woman maybe 20 years younger than my mama and maybe 130 times less polite than she could ever be. I went back out to the car, told my husband and he went in. She was even ruder to him and I probably shouldn't say what he did as well drove off (not obscene or anything to do with defacing property. but CallMeGoddess might be able to guess)

I'm of the general perception that people are polite until I get to talk to them or whatever. The lady at the gas station was such an exception I was ready to call her boss and tell her or him hwo rude she was to me a customer. I try my best not to make assumptions about people young or old. Because when you assume something you make an *** out of u and me.

Okay, I have a question to ask the populace of Otakuboards. Has anyone felt that they were discriminated against because of physical apperance or treated differently because of it? Or maybe treated differently because of religious beliefs?[/color]