Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It can't be a discussing sex or being seen naked thing because of my preference for sex with men (and I discuss sex and am seen naked by people I have sex with).

I think it has everything to do with your preference for having sex with men. You don't want a clinical encounter to have any sexual undertones in it. Neither does any sane individual. When you are going to a dermatologist, you aren't required to splay open your legs (unless you have some skin thing on your cooter). It is a sexually neutral encounter.

When you go to an OB/GYN, your sexual organs are being examined. The only context in which you are used to having a man do that to you is a sexual one. You don't want your encounter with your OB/GYN to be the least bit sexual and therefore you are more comfortable with a woman.

I am not saying that male OB/GYNs treat a vaginal exam as a sexual event. They don't unless they are criminals, which there aren't many who are. But the patients are used to only exposing their genitals to members of the opposite sex in a sexual context. The doctors get very used to seeing the genitals in non-sexual context so it isn't an issue for them. For the patients, it is.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I get a little more creeped out by a strange male sticking his hands up me and rubbing my breasts than I do a strange woman doing the same thing. It's kinda rational though: people are apparently much more likely to be straight than gay, so the creepy sexual aspect is much more likely to be a factor with a man.

I agree, and that is precisely why it isn't sexism that causes you to pick a woman doctor. You aren't doing it out of a belief that a man cannot be just as good of a doctor as a woman and therefore you are only going to use women OB/GYNs. You are doing it because of what we both have said.

Not every discriminatory act is sexist/racist. The reason why you engage in the discriminatory act determines whether it is sexist or racist. The PC crowd fails to distinguish between the two.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Well educate me. Why is it OK to make a decision based on race in choosing a doctor but not in choosing where to eat a meal?

Because I want my GP to have more than a passing familiarity with the unique health care problems presented by my sickle cell anemia, higher susceptibility to heart disease, and enormous penis.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Well educate me. Why is it OK to make a decision based on race in choosing a doctor but not in choosing where to eat a meal?

I think it's fine in either situation. I didn't say it wasn't OK for him to consider gender in where to eat a meal.

Because I can't see how a man would serve a meal any differently than a woman (unless the service involves running the food across genitals and then lasciviously sliding it into the mouth of the customer or what have you) I will think he's silly. If he only wants men as doctors, lawyers, waiters, and every other person he encounters, I'll think he's mentally ill in some way or incredibly sexist. If it's a fear of women, mentally ill. If it's that women should not be out of the control of their fathers or husbands at any time and aren't capable of and should not work outside the home, I'll think he's sexist. Male waiters for gumbo only and no other preferences as to sex makes me think weird seafood kink.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Because I want my GP to have more than a passing familiarity with the unique health care problems presented by my sickle cell anemia, higher susceptibility to heart disease, and enormous penis.*

Now that is racist. It presumes that only blacks can know about these things.

*it depends on what you mean by enormous. If you mean enormous when flaccid, you may be right. However, based on the Kinsey data, when erect, statistically there is no racial difference between black and white penis length.

If it is true about the flaccid state, it would appear that whites have larger expansion coefficients.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
Now that is racist. It presumes that only blacks can know about these things.

*it depends on what you mean by enormous. If you mean enormous when flaccid, you may be right. However, based on the Kinsey data, when erect, statistically there is no racial difference between black and white penis length.

If it is true about the flaccid state, it would appear that whites have larger expansion coefficients.

You do know that the Kinsey data is fucked up in a lot of ways, right? Not to say all of it is without merit, but there are significant questions.

However, kudos on managing to work in your familiarity with still more areas of knowledge. You are truly a Rennaisance it.

[ltl/fb]

Does anyone else think that the train collision in N Korea sounds like it could well have been a terrorist attack? Things that make you go . . .

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I think it's fine in either situation.

By fine do you mean non-racist?

I think if you pick a physician based on race, if you are doing it because you believe that only white people can know how to treat diseases that white people get, that is racist. Black physicians are trained the same as white physicians in this country.

Now, if you are from a particular immigrant group that has diseases rarely seen during physician training in the US, it would be wise to chose physicians with experience in treating the diseases of your particular group. But that isn't dependant on race. It is dependant on whether the doctor received the training or not. A white person can learn about rare tropical diseases just as well as a south american hispanic can. Now if the south american hispanic doctor lived in south america for a period and treated a higher number of cases of this disease, that of course is a valid reason to chose that person. But that is not dependant on race, just where the person trained/practiced.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Because I want my GP to have more than a passing familiarity with the unique health care problems presented by my sickle cell anemia, higher susceptibility to heart disease, and enormous penis.

Well, if a woman checked my postrate i'd be afraid i'd spew immediately (fringe normally i've got control). so i get the discriminate in Dr. thing, but I went to a Thai restuarant in Santa Cruz and the pisser was through the kitchen. the chef was a fucking American hippy, think Ty, say junior year. So, I want to be able to discriminate on my restaurants. ain't no hippies cooking me thai food, and i want an islam guy making me shwarma- fuck all if its not okay.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You do know that the Kinsey data is fucked up in a lot of ways, right? Not to say all of it is without merit, but there are significant questions.

Were there questions about the penis length data? I don't know, and am seriously asking.

My experience with Irish men has lead me to believe that the Irish curse is real.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Does anyone else think that the train collision in N Korea sounds like it could well have been a terrorist attack? Things that make you go . . .

you got me on ignore again? I answered this. trains get misrouted, although we don't really know if it was a train accident do we.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Does anyone else think that the train collision in N Korea sounds like it could well have been a terrorist attack? Things that make you go . . .

I don't know about terrorist attack, but I am thinking it may be an accident involving some sort of military weaponry, and that explains the high number of casualties. Maybe the trains were carrying some big old bombs for the miliary.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
By fine do you mean non-racist?

I think if you pick a physician based on race, if you are doing it because you believe that only white people can know how to treat diseases that white people get, that is racist. Black physicians are trained the same as white physicians in this country.

Now, if you are from a particular immigrant group that has diseases rarely seen during physician training in the US, it would be wise to chose physicians with experience in treating the diseases of your particular group. But that isn't dependant on race. It is dependant on whether the doctor received the training or not. A white person can learn about rare tropical diseases just as well as a south american hispanic can. Now if the south american hispanic doctor lived in south america for a period and treated a higher number of cases of this disease, that of course is a valid reason to chose that person. But that is not dependant on race, just where the person trained/practiced.

There was no mention of race dear, just sex. You need to calm down.

An overall aversion to a person of one sex or the other performing any kind of touching-involved personal services for a person isn't really that sexist to me, because of the sexuality issue. Random isolated preferences as to a particular sex performing a particular isolated function is not really a problem for me -- who knows, Burger may be worried that if a woman serves him crab gumbo or whatever it was that he will get a massive erection because of those early intense introductions to sensuality that occurred in the crab-fishing boat, and the erection will be obvious and embarrassing to him. Or, I might prefer not to have a man doing repairs with a hammer in my house because it brings back painful memories of being beaten with a hammer by my uncle when I interrupted him one day as he was hanging up pictures. (OK, that never happened, but it's an example.)

It's generalized strong aversion to people of one sex or another performing non-intimate tasks that seems sexist (in the bad sense).

I don't see any basis for preferring a doctor or whatever of a particular race, except maybe in rare cases of some trauma suffered (like that hammer thing).

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I answered this. trains get misrouted, although we don't really know if it was a train accident do we.

No, we don't. I read that there are nuclear plants in the area. But if this were chernobyl-redux, I would think that the Chinese or South Koreans would be able to detect the radiation by now.

I am thinking military bombs on a train or maybe at a factory exploded and that explains the large blast and huge number of casualties.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you got me on ignore again? I answered this. trains get misrouted, although we don't really know if it was a train accident do we.

If you don't even know if it was a train accident, how can you be so sure it wasn't a terrorist attack?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
There was no mention of race dear, just sex. You need to calm down.

No, you need to reread Club's post to which you were responding:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Well educate me. Why is it OK to make a decision based on race in choosing a doctor but not in choosing where to eat a meal?