|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jurassic5
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Location: PA
|
 Posted: Wed May 28, 2003 8:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="The Lemon"]
| Quote: |
| I've been telling my wife this, in a desperate attempt to fight off her mom's urging that now that she's married she adopt the Adjuma Curly-Perm, years before her time. |
hey, ain't nothin wrong with a curly perm...
<----------*looks at avatar  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Austin
Joined: 23 May 2003
Location: In the kitchen
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2003 8:20 am Post subject: Please read only what appears on the page... |
|
|
I am not �appealing� to anything, as I firmly assert that the masses are asses. Moreover, I was not �trying� to say that is was okay, far from it.
Where could you have possibly gotten that from what I wrote?
Why is it that so many on this site repeatedly fail to read what is written?
It is sincerely troubling to think that written words can confuse people to the point of seeing only that which they want to see.
Again, I stated, �One is not going to change the reality of our current world.�
Translation for you, CM: consumerism, capitalism, patriotism, etc. (all of the isms) are more powerful than any individual, so if we are going to change as a society, we need to begin with reevaluating the world that we help to perpetuate on a daily basis.
Hence the closing, �Some people say that we should have never left the trees, while others claim that we should have stayed in the water!�
Translation for you, CM: Can the way we live really be seen as �progress?� If we were to revert back to the way we used to be, would things actually be better? Either way, the mass conscience of our world does not view that as a possibility.
It is ironic that you not only read what you want to see, but also take comfort in being hypocritical. Does it really matter how you try to package the effects of discrimination?
I attest that it makes no difference whether your justifications for discriminating are objective or subjective, as the results are the same. The only difference rests in the feelings of sanctity within the perpetrator for believing they acted righteously.
CM, I can appreciate your experiences in life, but would you mind not reading more or less into what I write. I write exactly what I want to communicate, so please take it for what it is.
SCSA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emma Clare
Joined: 24 May 2003
Location: Anseong, sung, song.
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2003 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Austin! Your favourite old adversary here! 
After sending a couple of very 'cute' and smiley photos to a recruiter in SK I was told that "Directors roll out the red carpet for attractive women in South Korea" How blatant is that?!! Once upon a time I would have got quite uppity at this! Amazing that in this day and age you can still 'trade off your looks' to get a better wage. Sexism has some benefits I guess. Even if the grounds for provision are somewhat questionable! (Although I did joke with another recruiter shortly afterwards that I was going to start sending in bikini shots!)
Girls in most countries nowadays are completely obsessed with their looks. Self absorbed to the point of being utterly boring and tedious. How do they manage to have fun, if they're too worried about breaking a carefully tended to and painted nail? It's ridiculous! That's why I decided long ago, that on the whole, males are far more interesting. Motorbikes? Yeah!! Slimfast? Yawn....
Although I suppose it depends on how you define the word 'fun'...
I'm a bit stuffed though as I have a short blonde bob and I'm not growing it for anyone! Guess I had better dig out the maccy as well! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emma Clare
Joined: 24 May 2003
Location: Anseong, sung, song.
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2003 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oops!!
Completely misquoted there!!
This is actually what was written to me by a recruiter....
"Korean directors love to roll out the red carpet for attractive female teachers, as students generally prefer this"
There you go! Students want goodlooking teachers rather than ugly ones and the Directors make sure that you get the Royal treatment for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2003 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bit puzzled by the article's writer. I wonder if he isn't leaving out a fair bit, such as his teaching methods, conduct of lessons, etc. The reason I wonder is that I've taught middle-school girls here for almost a year and haven't had much in the way of negative reaction from the students. Here's the kicker: I'm middle-aged & only servile flatterers and the visually impaired would describe me as being a "hunka-hunka burnin' love".... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Circus Monkey
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Location: In my coconut tree
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2003 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With all due respect Austin, you�re the one who is �only reading what you want to see� and now you lay a charge of me being hypocritical. I challenge you to prove it. In the �one is not going to change the reality of the world� you�ll find that I didn�t address that point. Cynically speaking, it certainly appears that way and you may be right in saying that �(all of the isms) are more powerful than any individual,�� However, things (re: reality) can change and hopefully be made better.
Let me refresh your memory, okay?
| SCSA wrote: |
| We discriminate 24/7. We show preference constantly from the foods that we like to eat to the company of people that we care to keep. |
That is an appeal to authority. Look up the definition if you don�t know. Now you may say it is merely an observation, in which case I�ll say it isn�t very insightful. It ranks up there with water is wet and the sky is blue. When I used the word �you� in my last post, as in: �That is, you are trying to say that "it's okay because everyone else does it." I am attacking the argument, not you personally. I can�t believe I have to spell that out for you.
Let me further clarify what I mean by subjective and objective reasons regarding discrimination.
In an objective case, a person who has SARs (or some other infectious disease) wants to work at a construction company. Since that job entails exposure to other people, an employer would have a valid reason to reject that person�s application due to possible health risks.
In a subjective case, a person applies for the same job but is of a different skin color than the employer. The employer decides not to hire that person based on that criteria. Since there is no link found between skin color and work performance, the employer does not have a valid reason to discourage the applicant.
The results of discrimination are not the same if laws against subjective discrimination are put into place and enforced. How you think they would be is beyond me.
CM
edit: here's a link.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Austin
Joined: 23 May 2003
Location: In the kitchen
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2003 10:48 pm Post subject: We should neve have left the trees... |
|
|
So as not to lose track of how we got here, my original posting was in response to a poster that condemned Korean society for "worrying only about looks, clothes, and makeup." Moreover, they went on to claim that Koreans' lives were "shallow" and then proceeded to make disparaging remarks about their sense of fashion and level of maturity.
My post was a sincere attempt at accenting the obvious by stating that "people tend to be shallow most everywhere."
I proclaimed that it was unfair and misleading to characterize these problems as Korean.
Unfortunately, you inaccurately represented the latter part of my post, so I responded in an attempt to explain to you that what I wrote is what I wrote, not what you thought you saw. In the following:
| Quote: |
| You are appealing to popularity here. That is, you are trying to say "it's okay because everyone else does it." |
I find it odd, yet amusing that you are still trying to enlighten me with what I meant by what I wrote. I never once said anything was "okay." Those were your words. Understand?
I was merely posting an honest observation that the behavior was not naturally Korean. More importantly, I was not making an argument, as you have stated.
This entire bit is quite bizarre, because you respond to my refutation of your interpretation of my observation with a further explanation of your interpretation that I already stated was incorrect!
You do not need to clarify what you meant by discrimination, because I know what I meant, and I meant it!
Either way, the results are the same. Whether you discriminate using objective or subjective reasoning, you are still discriminating. The only difference rests in how justified you will or will not feel as a result of your rational.
Do you think you are taking the high road by championing objective discrimination and rejecting subjective discrimination? Think again. In your example, you claim that there is no link found between skin color and work performance, so the employer does not have a valid reason. However, who are you to say what is valid and what is invalid? The employer may well have numerous reasons for not wanting to hire a particular person.
As stated, "I attest that it makes no difference whether your justifications for discriminating are objective or subjective, as the results are the same. The only difference rests in the feelings of sanctity within the perpetrator for believing they acted righteously."
Am I to believe that you think that discrimination is fine in certain situations, but not in others?
If you believe the above to be true, than you are indeed taking comfort in being hypocritical (i.e. you feel justified in your rationale). However, if you have changed your tune, I will retract me assertion that you were taking comfort in being hypocritical by drawing a difference in the effects of discrimination.
Again, does it really matter how you try to package the effects of discrimination?
Where is the contention?
By combining your example, we might have a breakthrough. Imagine there was a person with dark skin and SARS and the employer did not hire the individual. Does it really matter why the employer did not hire him, because the results are the same! No job!
Again, the outcome is the same; I could care less how a person wants to wrap my gift, because the contents are the same.
Should we all wear black clothes? They would function the same in any color, so why does it matter?
Again, because we have a preference, and that is not exclusive of Koreans (i.e. the other poster was being unfair in their characterization of Korean people).
Is it really asking too much to allow people the courtesy to manage their own words?
SCSA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Circus Monkey
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Location: In my coconut tree
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2003 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
For someone who thinks people are trying to put words in their mouth or "manage their words" I must say, you indeed are calling the kettle black. I thought I already explained the quote in regards to �you� That is,
| CM wrote: |
| That is, you are trying to say "it's okay because everyone else does it." |
You = your argument. Got it yet? The above quote merely explains what an appeal to popularity is. But that�s fine. You merely state it�s an observation. I already replied to that point.
| SCSA wrote: |
| You do not need to clarify what you meant by discrimination, because I know what I meant, and I meant it! |
Well, what is wrong with clarification?
| SCSA wrote: |
| Either way, the results are the same. Whether you discriminate using objective or subjective reasoning, you are still discriminating. The only difference rests in how justified you will or will not feel as a result of your rational. |
No. If there is a law that says it is wrong to discriminate a person based on color and if the law is enforced, then the person who is discriminated against can be compensated or whatever. The results will be different, even though the act of discrimination is being practiced. One would be illegal and one would not. I would hope this is obvious.
| SCSA wrote: |
| Do you think you are taking the high road by championing objective discrimination and rejecting subjective discrimination? Think again. In your example, you claim that there is no link found between skin color and work performance, so the employer does not have a valid reason. However, who are you to say what is valid and what is invalid? The employer may well have numerous reasons for not wanting to hire a particular person. |
Now here you are putting words into my mouth. I though this is what you were accusing me of doing? I�m not taking the high road here but merely pointing out that there are different kinds of discrimination. Please read the examples over again. Are you saying here that an employer gets to decide who should be hired regardless of what the law says? Be careful here.
| SCSA wrote: |
| Am I to believe that you think that discrimination is fine in certain situations, but not in others? |
See above. I think that point is obvious. Would you allow a person with SARs to work in close proximity to you or your employees?
| SCSA wrote: |
| If you believe the above to be true, than you are indeed taking comfort in being hypocritical (i.e. you feel justified in your rationale). However, if you have changed your tune, I will retract me assertion that you were taking comfort in being hypocritical by drawing a difference in the effects of discrimination. |
Not being hypocritical at all. It�s called justifying an argument. Again, would you allow a person with SARs to work in close proximity to you or your employees?
| SCSA wrote: |
Again, does it really matter how you try to package the effects of discrimination?
Where is the contention? |
The contention lies with what is valid to discriminate against. You yourself admit that you are �not an equal opportunity employer.� As well, you cannot justify this stance.
| SCSA wrote: |
| By combining your example, we might have a breakthrough. Imagine there was a person with dark skin and SARS and the employer did not hire the individual. Does it really matter why the employer did not hire him, because the results are the same! No job! Again, the outcome is the same; I could care less how a person wants to wrap my gift, because the contents are the same. |
Big deal. I would argue that SARS poses the OBJECTIVE problem while the SUBJECTIVE skin color does not. You cannot justify why a company will not hire such a person while I can. Now you are taking an unrepresentative sample and trying to apply it to the whole. It�s interesting to note that you have to take such an extreme example to prove that �the results are the same�.
| SCSA wrote: |
| Again, because we have a preference, and that is not exclusive of Koreans (i.e. the other poster was being unfair in their characterization of Korean people). |
Do you mean here the article that jurrassic5 posted? Which poster are you referring to?
| SCSA wrote: |
| Is it really asking too much to allow people the courtesy to manage their own words? |
Is someone taking over your keyboard and account while your back was turned? Are you referring to context? Coming from a person who puts words in my mouth (yes � take a look when you say I�m purporting to be a champion of objective discrimination. Unlike yourself, I merely can make a case for it. Don�t try to turn it into a straw man) I won�t hold my breath. You�re quite good at style over substance.
I want to ask you one thing, SCSA. Can you justify discrimination or do you think it doesn't matter since the results are the same?
CM
Last edited by Circus Monkey on Thu May 29, 2003 12:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Circus Monkey
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Location: In my coconut tree
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2003 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SCSA wrote: |
| I was merely posting an honest observation that the behavior was not naturally Korean. More importantly, I was not making an argument, as you have stated. This entire bit is quite bizarre, because you respond to my refutation of your interpretation of my observation with a further explanation of your interpretation that I already stated was incorrect! |
Actually, I think what happened is that you mistakenly thought that when I said "you", you interpreted it personally.
Again, an honest observation I have no problem with. Like I said earlier, the sky is blue.
CM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Circus Monkey
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Location: In my coconut tree
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2003 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| SCSA wrote: |
So as not to lose track of how we got here, my original posting was in response to a poster that condemned Korean society for "worrying only about looks, clothes, and makeup." Moreover, they went on to claim that Koreans' lives were "shallow" and then proceeded to make disparaging remarks about their sense of fashion and level of maturity.
My post was a sincere attempt at accenting the obvious by stating that "people tend to be shallow most everywhere."
I proclaimed that it was unfair and misleading to characterize these problems as Korean. |
The person who made that remark is obviously making a hasty generalization. I mistook your observation and can concede that point.
However, when you said "we discriminate 24/7" yes, we do. But my main point is that a case can be made for valid discrimination.
Mind you, in making observations you still have to be careful. After all, everyone thought that the world was flat at one time. I would be interested in that link you had regarding students at US universities.
CM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Emma Clare
Joined: 24 May 2003
Location: Anseong, sung, song.
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2003 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
AUSTIN (Hiya!) and CIRCUS MONKEY.
IF YOU WANT TO TEAR EACH OTHER TO PIECES WHY CAN'T YOU JUST DO IT IN PRIVATE?!!!!
YOU'RE SO BUSY ARGUING, THAT YOU'RE NO LONGER ADDRESSING THE TOPIC IN ANY USEFUL WAY WHATSOEVER. NOR ARE YOU DEVELOPING IT, YOU'RE JUST GOING ROUND IN CIRCLES.
JUST AGREE TO DISAGREE, SHAKE HANDS, AND BEHAVE LIKE GENTLEMEN.
I HAD AN EPHEMERAL WAR WITH AUSTIN. HE’S ACTUALLY A REALLY SOUND GUY AND HE HAS MORE EXPERIENCE THAN PROBABLY ANY OF YOU! HE’S CERTAINLY HELPED ME OUT! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Circus Monkey
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Location: In my coconut tree
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2003 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sounds fine to me. Don't need to use all caps Emma.
CM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gajackson1
Joined: 27 Jan 2003
Location: Casa Chil, Sungai Besar, Sultanate of Brunei
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2003 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
not to stir the hornets nest, but . . .
As mentioned before in other threads, being 'attractive' to others makes things much easier for a person in virtually every aspect of their lives. Period.
So yes, 'good-looking' teachers DO have it easier in some senses.
That being said, there is a lot of debate about not just what makes people 'attractive' to others, but also if that same attractiveness might hurt in overall character, physical, spiritual, and/or intellectual development down the line. And also, if physical attractiveness can also lead to jealousy/envy/loathing in others, to where it becomes a hindrance, as well. Hey, interactions are very complex and fuzzy!!!
Not everyone is lucky enough to hit the genetic lottery (currently, but we are frickin close) to be blessed with good looks.
but, there ARE things ANYONE can do to make themself more attractive to others.
It's not just the hand you were dealt; it's how you play 'em out, too.
Regards,
G. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Circus Monkey
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Location: In my coconut tree
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2003 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This debate never goes away. People who are good-looking get hired over people who aren't (and may have better qualifications).
1. Is this unique to Korea? No.
2. Does it seem to happen a lot here? Yes.
3. Is it the best way to hire someone? No.
I'm sure for #3 someone will say "but, it's not the director's fault. It's what the parents want" or something equally inane.
CM |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mokpochica
Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2003 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that this article is probably a little exaggerated to make a good story, and maybe the writer at least had some female students that liked him just because he was a good teacher. In other words, I wouldn't let his recounting of this one experience deter you from teaching middle school kids altogether.
I teach at a co-ed middle school, and sure the kids are kind of image conscious. I don't find that it really affects me much though as a basically average looking female. Sometimes I get comments about my appearance, which I respond to with either a quick 'thank-you' or an 'oh well' and move on to teaching.
I think the dynamic is probably different for men teaching young girls (who may tend to develop middle school crushes more than boys), but I don't think it's something that can't be overcome. Once kids get to know you and become familiar with you they usually stop focusing on your appearance and focus more on your words and teaching. In the long run, the content of your classes is the most important thing and what you will hear the most comments about.
Anyway, in general I find that Korean students are more complimentary about my appearance than their North American counterparts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
